Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker—if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation. Imposing a right for a certain policies to be followed does not constitute accusing the person of a crime, there is a crime indeed if the alto sax were not surrendered in due time when the teacher has already requested the student to surrender it, failure to surrender the property constitutes theft, and theft is a crime.So were is the malicious accusation there..the student is parading her gross ignorance of the law obviously..and now her friends posted malicious comments about the teacher...and the end of the drama..the teacher protects his rights..went to the court of justice...
Naku lagot ka na ...
Thursday, December 10, 2009
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS
Case no 1:
The complainant posted a notice at the wall of the facebook account of someone,the notice is of course within the ethical standards and boundary of the law.,just imposing a right as provided by the DepEd rules and regulations as implemented by the school's policy. The respondent can't understand the meaning of the confusing and legalistic manner of presentation and alignment of words perhaps, due to her insufficient understanding of the whole facts..here comes the friends of the respondent who were obviously has the same level of thinking and learning like her,..posted different comments of anything which were defamatory and libelous..Does the complainant now has the right to sue the respondent with libel as well as the respondent's friend who also posted libelous remarks against the complainant?
Answer: Yes, posting a defamatory remark, specially if such remarks or comments does not fall under the standards of posting comments at the internet, with the purpose of harassing, annoying and the name of the person defamed were mentioned and published at the public area of a social networking site.Publication is a notification enough that there is already a violation of the rights of the person defamed..
comment: Ano ba naman klaseng student yun?..so ungrateful, tinuruan na nga ng teacher tapos ganun pa ang gagawin sa teacher, well anyway,. the teacher fights back..see you at the court room guys, bring your best instruments...he-he-he-
The complainant posted a notice at the wall of the facebook account of someone,the notice is of course within the ethical standards and boundary of the law.,just imposing a right as provided by the DepEd rules and regulations as implemented by the school's policy. The respondent can't understand the meaning of the confusing and legalistic manner of presentation and alignment of words perhaps, due to her insufficient understanding of the whole facts..here comes the friends of the respondent who were obviously has the same level of thinking and learning like her,..posted different comments of anything which were defamatory and libelous..Does the complainant now has the right to sue the respondent with libel as well as the respondent's friend who also posted libelous remarks against the complainant?
Answer: Yes, posting a defamatory remark, specially if such remarks or comments does not fall under the standards of posting comments at the internet, with the purpose of harassing, annoying and the name of the person defamed were mentioned and published at the public area of a social networking site.Publication is a notification enough that there is already a violation of the rights of the person defamed..
comment: Ano ba naman klaseng student yun?..so ungrateful, tinuruan na nga ng teacher tapos ganun pa ang gagawin sa teacher, well anyway,. the teacher fights back..see you at the court room guys, bring your best instruments...he-he-he-
Friday, December 4, 2009
WRIT OF AMPARO
The Court of Appeals approved on Friday a muslim family's petition for a writ of amparo, effectively preventing security forces from restricting clan members' movement within the province. This means that the military personnel there in Maguindanao can no longer restrict the movement of these persons.The writ is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity..
Would it stop the rido or will it only further aggravates the situation,raising more warlords in these modern times..Warlords still exist,.it's sad but true.
Would it stop the rido or will it only further aggravates the situation,raising more warlords in these modern times..Warlords still exist,.it's sad but true.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)