In the Philippines, disputes between students and schools over the release of a Transcript of Records (TOR), diploma, certificates, and other school credentials often arise when a school claims that the student still has an unpaid balance, an accountability, or some other unresolved obligation. These cases can be legally and practically significant because school records are often required for employment, board examinations, further studies, scholarship applications, migration, and professional licensing.

The central legal question is this: Can a school lawfully withhold a student’s TOR or diploma because of an alleged unpaid balance? The Philippine answer is not simply yes or no. It depends on the type of school, the kind of document being requested, the stage of the student’s enrollment, the nature of the obligation, whether the claim is truly due and demandable, and the applicable rules of the Department of Education, the Commission on Higher Education, and general contract and civil law principles.

This article explains the Philippine legal framework on school retention of records, the rights of students, the powers of schools, the limits of those powers, the available remedies, and the practical steps a student may take when records are withheld.

1. Why TOR and diploma matter legally

A Transcript of Records is more than an internal school paper. It is an official academic record reflecting the subjects taken, grades received, units earned, and degree progress or completion. A diploma is the formal document evidencing graduation or completion of a course or degree. Other commonly requested records include:

certificate of graduation,
certificate of candidacy for graduation,
honorable dismissal,
certification of units earned,
certificate of good moral character,
report card,
transfer credentials,
academic certifications.

These records are not merely conveniences. In many situations, they are essential to the exercise of a person’s right to education, employment mobility, and professional advancement. Because of that, retention disputes are not treated as trivial administrative matters.

2. The basic tension: school’s right to collect versus student’s right to records

These disputes usually involve two competing interests:

A. The school’s interest

A school, especially a private school, has a legitimate interest in:

collecting unpaid tuition and other lawful fees,
enforcing contracts and enrollment undertakings,
ensuring that students settle valid accountabilities,
protecting school property and institutional operations.

B. The student’s interest

A student has a legitimate interest in:

receiving proof of academic performance,
obtaining credentials earned through completed coursework,
not being blocked from work or further study by arbitrary withholding,
being protected from unlawful charges or unsupported balances,
being treated fairly and with due process.

The law attempts to balance these interests. A school is not automatically wrong for asserting a valid claim. But it is also not automatically right to withhold all records whenever it alleges any balance.

3. Public schools and private schools are not always treated the same

The legal analysis often differs depending on whether the institution is public or private.

Public schools

Public educational institutions are more directly bound by constitutional and statutory obligations tied to public service, government standards, and access to education. The grounds for withholding records are generally narrower and must be clearly supported.

Private schools

Private schools have greater room to operate through contractual arrangements with students, school manuals, enrollment agreements, and internal policies. But their powers are still not absolute. They remain subject to:

the Constitution,
education laws and regulations,
administrative rules,
consumer fairness principles,
good faith in contractual enforcement,
and basic due process.

A private school cannot justify any act merely by saying it is a private institution. School policies cannot override law or public policy.

4. What is “retention of records”?

Retention of records generally means the refusal to release one or more of the following because of alleged unpaid obligations or unresolved accountabilities:

Transcript of Records,
diploma,
transfer credentials,
report card,
certificate of graduation,
honorable dismissal,
academic certification,
clearances needed to process records.

Sometimes the school does not say outright that it is “withholding” records. Instead, it may:

refuse to process requests,
indefinitely delay release,
require payment first,
insist on clearance impossible to obtain,
state that graduation documents are “on hold,”
refuse to issue even partial certifications.

Legally, substance matters more than wording. If the student is effectively being deprived of access to records because of an alleged balance, the issue is one of retention.

5. Is there a general rule that schools may withhold TOR or diploma for unpaid balances?

There is no universal rule that applies identically in every situation, but the practical Philippine rule is this:

Schools may, in some cases, refuse release of certain records pending settlement of valid and lawful obligations, especially in private education. But that power is limited and cannot be exercised arbitrarily, oppressively, or contrary to law, regulation, fairness, or due process.

This means several things at once:

not every claimed balance justifies withholding,
not every document may be withheld in the same way,
the school’s claim must be lawful and supported,
there may be exceptions where release is still required,
the student may challenge the basis, amount, or fairness of the withholding.

6. The importance of the phrase “alleged balance”

A school saying that a student has a balance does not automatically make the balance legally enforceable.

A balance may be disputed because:

the amount is wrong,
the student already paid,
the charge was not properly disclosed,
the charge is not authorized,
the charge is contrary to school rules or government regulation,
the charge is prescribed, waived, or already settled,
the school is billing the wrong person,
the student was not given proper accounting,
the balance is based on penalties or fees imposed without basis.

This is why the issue is often not simply “Did the student pay?” but also:

What exactly is the charge?
Was it validly imposed?
Was it properly disclosed?
Is there proof?
Does the school have a lawful basis to tie that charge to release of records?

7. Common balances schools rely on

Schools may cite many kinds of obligations, such as:

unpaid tuition,
miscellaneous fees,
laboratory fees,
graduation fees,
library fines,
unreturned books,
dormitory charges,
ID replacement charges,
damage to school property,
student publication fees,
NSTP-related fees,
thesis or practicum-related charges,
installment surcharges,
promissory note defaults.

Each type of obligation may raise different legal issues. For example, unpaid tuition is treated differently from an unsupported “penalty” or an unexplained “administrative accountability.”

8. Student rights begin with disclosure and transparency

A school that claims a balance should be able to provide a clear and itemized accounting.

A student is entitled to know:

the exact amount allegedly due,
what semester or school year it relates to,
the legal or contractual basis for the charge,
what payments have already been credited,
whether penalties or interest were added,
whether the charge was approved and disclosed as required.

A school that merely says “You still have a balance” without supporting breakdown may be acting on weak footing. In disputes, vague claims are not enough.

9. Tuition and fees in the Philippine educational context

Particularly in private education, tuition and other school fees are usually governed by:

the school’s approved fee schedule,
enrollment forms and payment agreements,
school manuals and student handbooks,
regulatory requirements regarding fee increases and disclosures,
general principles of contract and fairness.

A school cannot ordinarily invent fees after the fact or impose charges without basis. The student’s obligation must rest on a lawful and properly disclosed framework.

That does not mean every fee must be individually negotiated. It means the fee must have a recognizable source:

statute,
regulation,
official school policy,
approved schedule,
or valid enrollment undertaking.

10. Enrollment is contractual, but not purely private in character

The relationship between school and student is often described as contractual, especially in private schools. By enrolling, the student accepts school rules, fee structures, and academic standards. But educational contracts are not ordinary commercial contracts in every respect.

Education is imbued with public interest. That means:

school discretion is real, but not unchecked,
contract provisions may be reviewed for legality and fairness,
school policies must yield to law and public policy,
students are not stripped of rights merely because they signed forms.

So while a school may rely on contract, it cannot use contract language to justify abusive withholding or unauthorized charges.

11. Can a school withhold a diploma after the student has already graduated?

This is one of the most disputed issues.

A diploma is not just a future privilege; it is the formal recognition of a course already completed. Once a student has fulfilled academic requirements, the school’s right to condition release of the diploma on disputed or weakly supported charges becomes more legally sensitive.

A school may argue:

graduation does not erase lawful financial obligations,
release of graduation documents may still depend on clearance,
institutional accountability must be settled before final credentials are released.

A student may counter:

the degree was already earned,
the alleged balance is contested or unsupported,
withholding the diploma causes disproportionate harm,
a debt claim should be collected through ordinary legal means rather than academic hostage-taking,
the school should not leverage earned credentials over disputed money.

The stronger the student’s academic entitlement and the weaker or less documented the financial claim, the more vulnerable the school’s position becomes.

12. Can a school withhold TOR when the student needs it for transfer, work, or board exams?

A school may attempt to do so, particularly in private education, but the legality of that refusal depends on context.

Important considerations include:

whether the balance is admitted or contested,
whether the student asks for an original TOR or a certification,
whether the document is needed urgently for employment or licensure,
whether the school can release some limited certification while the dispute is pending,
whether the withholding is consistent with educational regulations and fairness.

A blanket refusal to release anything at all may be more legally problematic than a narrowly tailored response.

13. Distinguishing between original credentials and interim certifications

In practice, some disputes can be softened by distinguishing between:

original TOR,
diploma,
transfer credentials,
temporary certifications,
certified true copies,
certificates of units earned,
certificates of graduation.

Even where a school claims a right to withhold a final official credential pending settlement, there may be arguments that it should still issue limited certifications confirming:

enrollment history,
degree completion,
number of units earned,
graduation status.

This is especially compelling where the student faces immediate prejudice, such as a job deadline or licensure application.

14. A school’s retention power is not unlimited

Even where some withholding may be allowed, the school cannot act in an unlimited or abusive manner.

Retention becomes vulnerable to challenge when:

the charge is unauthorized,
the charge is not itemized,
the student was not given notice,
the balance is inflated,
the student already paid,
penalties were added arbitrarily,
the withholding is indefinite,
the school refuses even to explain the basis,
the school uses humiliation or coercion,
the records are withheld for reasons unrelated to lawful accountability,
the school retaliates against the student for complaints.

The law generally disfavors arbitrary exercises of institutional power.

15. Due process in school retention disputes

Even in administrative or internal school matters, basic fairness and due process matter.

The student should ordinarily be given:

notice of the alleged balance,
a clear statement of the basis,
an opportunity to question or reconcile the amount,
access to records showing the computation,
a channel for appeal or review.

A school that withholds records without explanation or without a meaningful chance to contest the charge may be vulnerable to administrative complaint and legal challenge.

16. What if the student disputes the balance?

Once the balance is disputed in good faith, the issue is no longer just collection. It becomes a controversy over:

proof,
accounting,
contractual basis,
fairness,
and legality.

In such a case, a school should ideally be able to produce:

statement of account,
official receipts,
ledger,
enrollment agreement,
school policy basis,
approvals or disclosures for fees,
basis for surcharges or penalties.

A mere internal notation that the student “has a balance” may not be enough if challenged.

17. What if the school says “no clearance, no release”?

Clearance systems are common. Schools often require signatures from the library, laboratory, finance office, department chair, registrar, and other units before documents are released.

Clearance requirements are not automatically unlawful. They may serve legitimate purposes. But they become problematic when:

the required offices refuse to act arbitrarily,
the student cannot obtain clearance because of an unsupported charge,
the clearance process is used to conceal the real issue,
the school imposes conditions with no regulatory or contractual basis,
the process becomes punitive rather than administrative.

A school cannot hide an unlawful retention behind the phrase “clearance policy.”

18. Differences between unpaid tuition and other accountabilities

Unpaid tuition is generally the strongest basis a school may cite for collection-related restrictions. But not all “accountabilities” are equal.

Stronger grounds

unpaid tuition,
admitted unpaid installment obligations,
unreturned school property with documented value,
unpaid officially disclosed fees.

Weaker or more challengeable grounds

vague administrative charges,
unexplained penalties,
undocumented fines,
fees never disclosed before enrollment,
charges inconsistent with regulations,
excessive surcharges,
duplicative billing.

The weaker the underlying claim, the weaker the school’s justification for retention.

19. Public policy concerns: education versus debt collection

There is a recurring public policy argument in these disputes: Should educational credentials be used as leverage to collect money?

Schools argue this is sometimes necessary because:

ordinary collection is costly and slow,
students may disappear after graduation,
institutions need practical tools to enforce obligations.

Students argue this can be abusive because:

the credentials represent academic achievement already earned,
withholding cripples the student’s future,
schools already have legal remedies for collection,
a debt claim should not become a barrier to employment or licensure.

Philippine legal treatment tends to balance these interests rather than absolutely favor one side. Still, when the school’s conduct becomes oppressive or the debt claim is weak, public policy leans toward protecting the student.

20. Constitutional values that matter

Even when the case is not a direct constitutional suit, constitutional values shape the legal environment:

the importance of education,
fairness and due process,
access to opportunities,
protection against arbitrary action,
social justice considerations.

These values do not automatically erase contractual school fees. But they influence how laws, regulations, and school policies are interpreted.

21. Administrative regulation matters heavily

Many disputes over retention are not won or lost solely on broad civil law principles. They often turn on education regulations and the jurisdiction of agencies such as:

CHED for higher education institutions,
DepEd for basic education institutions,
in some contexts, TESDA for certain technical-vocational matters.

These agencies may issue rules on:

release of credentials,
student records,
fee disclosures,
school obligations,
grievance procedures,
administrative sanctions against schools.

In practical terms, a student challenging retention often has an administrative remedy even before or alongside court action.

22. For higher education: CHED concerns

In colleges and universities, CHED-related regulation is especially important. Common issues include:

release of TOR,
honorable dismissal,
diploma processing,
graduation documentation,
fee legality,
student grievance procedures.

A higher education institution that withholds records without sufficient basis may face:

administrative complaint,
directive to explain,
compliance order,
sanctions depending on the severity and governing rules.

23. For basic education: DepEd concerns

In elementary and secondary education, the treatment of report cards, certificates, and transfer credentials also implicates student access and continuity of education. The stronger the impact on the learner’s ability to continue schooling, the more carefully the withholding is scrutinized.

A school may have financial claims, but blocking the learner’s educational progression through arbitrary record retention can be especially problematic.

24. Are schools allowed to refuse enrollment instead of withholding records?

That is a separate but related issue. A school’s power to deny re-enrollment due to unpaid obligations may be treated differently from the power to withhold already-earned records. In some cases, the school may have greater discretion regarding future enrollment than over documents reflecting completed academic work.

This distinction matters:

future admission or re-enrollment concerns ongoing contractual relations,
TOR and diploma concern proof of past academic accomplishment.

A school’s right to say “we will not re-enroll you until you settle” does not automatically answer whether it may also refuse release of all existing records.

25. The problem of “alleged balance” after years have passed

Sometimes a student returns years later to request a TOR or diploma and is suddenly told there is an old unpaid balance. This raises special concerns:

Was the balance previously disclosed?
Was the student ever billed properly?
Are the records complete?
Is the amount accurate after so much time?
Is the school adding later penalties?
Was the school silent for years and only raised the issue when the student requested records?

Long delay does not automatically extinguish the claim, but it may weaken the school’s position, especially if documentation is poor or the amount appears unreliable.

26. Prescription and stale claims

Debt and collection issues may be affected by prescription and the nature of the obligation. While schools may keep internal ledgers for long periods, not every stale claim remains judicially enforceable forever. A school relying on an old alleged balance should still be able to explain:

the source of the debt,
the date it arose,
whether it was acknowledged,
whether the claim remains enforceable,
whether the amount has been lawfully updated.

A student confronting a very old claim should not assume it is automatically valid just because it appears in school records.

27. What if the student already paid but the school failed to post the payment?

This is common in practice. The key issue becomes proof.

The student should gather:

official receipts,
deposit slips,
online banking confirmations,
screenshots of payment portals,
acknowledgment emails,
text messages from the cashier or finance office,
copies of promissory notes and proof of compliance.

A school cannot insist on payment twice simply because its internal records are incomplete. Once payment is shown, the basis for retention weakens substantially.

28. Can the school charge interest, penalties, or surcharges?

Possibly, but not without basis.

To be enforceable, such charges should ordinarily have a clear source in:

school policy,
enrollment agreement,
officially disclosed fee rules,
or some lawful undertaking accepted by the student.

Unexplained or excessive penalties are open to challenge. A school cannot merely impose amounts because they are convenient leverage.

29. The role of good faith

Good faith matters on both sides.

School good faith

A school acts in better faith when it:

gives itemized billing,
credits payments promptly,
answers student inquiries,
allows reconciliation,
distinguishes disputed from admitted charges,
considers provisional solutions.

Student good faith

A student acts in better faith when he or she:

requests an accounting,
presents proof of payment,
raises specific objections,
does not deny legitimate obligations without basis,
proposes settlement if appropriate.

Disputes escalate when either side becomes absolute and refuses documentation.

30. Is the diploma the property of the student?

A diploma is produced by the school, but it represents the student’s earned academic achievement. That makes the issue more than ordinary property ownership. The better view is that the school has institutional authority over issuance, but once the student has lawfully qualified, the diploma cannot be treated as a purely discretionary token.

That is why indefinite withholding based on weak or disputed money claims is legally vulnerable.

31. Can a student compel release through a demand letter?

A formal demand letter can be very useful.

A good demand letter may:

identify the records being requested,
ask for itemized accounting,
dispute unsupported charges,
attach proof of payment if available,
set a deadline for response,
state the prejudice caused by non-release,
preserve the student’s position for later complaint.

A demand letter does not automatically force release, but it helps establish:

notice,
the exact controversy,
whether the school acted reasonably after being confronted.

32. Is a lawyer required?

Not always.

A student may first:

request accounting from the registrar or finance office,
elevate the matter to the dean or school head,
use internal grievance channels,
file an administrative complaint with the proper education authority.

But legal assistance becomes especially useful when:

the amount is substantial,
the school remains unresponsive,
the issue affects a job or board exam deadline,
the claim is old or complex,
there may be a civil action for damages,
the school’s policies appear unlawful.

33. Administrative remedies available to students

Depending on the institution and educational level, the student may pursue:

internal school grievance procedures,
complaint before the registrar or finance office,
appeal to the school president or principal,
complaint before CHED,
complaint before DepEd,
complaint before other relevant education bodies where applicable.

Administrative remedies can be powerful because schools are regulated entities. Even when the school believes it has a right to collect, regulators may still question the fairness or legality of record retention.

34. Civil remedies

A student may also explore civil remedies, depending on the facts. Possible theories may include:

specific performance,
damages,
injunction,
declaratory relief in appropriate cases.

For example, where the student has clearly completed all academic requirements and the school refuses to release credentials based on unsupported charges, an action to compel compliance may be considered. If the withholding caused measurable harm, such as loss of employment opportunity, damages may also be argued.

Civil cases, however, take time, so they are often pursued alongside administrative pressure.

35. Possible damages in a wrongful withholding case

If a school wrongfully withholds records, possible consequences may include claims for:

actual damages, if specific losses can be proven,
moral damages in proper cases involving bad faith or oppressive conduct,
nominal damages where a right was violated,
attorney’s fees in proper circumstances.

Not every inconvenience leads to damages. The student must show the legal basis and, where needed, actual injury or bad faith.

36. When school retention may be more defensible

A school’s position is stronger where:

the balance is clear, admitted, and documented,
the fees were properly disclosed,
the student signed valid undertakings,
the school gave notice and opportunity to reconcile,
the withholding is consistent with policy and regulation,
the school is not refusing all possible certifications,
the student has no proof of payment,
the obligation is directly tied to lawful enrollment charges.

Even then, the school should still avoid arbitrary or excessive action.

37. When the student’s position is stronger

The student’s position is stronger where:

the balance is only “alleged” and unsupported,
the amount is vague or inconsistent,
fees were not disclosed,
payment receipts exist,
the school added unauthorized penalties,
the student already graduated,
the records are urgently needed for licensure, work, or transfer,
the school refuses to provide even an accounting,
the school uses retention to intimidate,
there is evidence of bad faith or retaliatory conduct.

38. School manuals and student handbooks do matter, but they are not absolute

Many schools rely on student handbooks stating that:

no clearance means no release of records,
balances must be fully paid before credentials are issued,
graduates must settle all accountabilities.

These provisions are relevant, but they are not invincible. They can still be examined for:

legality,
consistency with higher regulations,
fairness,
proper incorporation into the student contract,
and proper application to the particular facts.

A school handbook cannot legalize what the law or regulation does not permit.

39. Report cards and school records in basic education may raise special concerns

When the withheld document is a report card or transfer record needed for a child to continue schooling, the equities often favor release more strongly. Preventing a learner from moving to another school because of parent or guardian balances raises serious education-access concerns.

The younger and more dependent the student, the more cautious the legal system tends to be about allowing educational interruption through record retention.

40. What if the debt belongs to the parent, not the student?

This issue often arises in basic education. The child may be academically entitled to records, but the school may be dealing with a parent’s unpaid obligations. Using the child’s records as leverage for a parent’s debt raises fairness concerns, especially where it impairs the child’s right to continue schooling.

The school may still have a valid claim for payment, but that does not always justify burdening the learner’s access to records.

41. Can a school withhold credentials for non-financial reasons?

Sometimes schools cite not just balances but also:

disciplinary sanctions,
pending investigations,
unreturned property,
unresolved clearance items,
missing exit requirements.

These too must have lawful basis and fair process. A school cannot invent hold orders without authority. Academic records documenting completed coursework should not be suppressed casually.

42. Special issue: graduation fees and release of diploma

Graduation-related disputes often involve charges for:

toga,
yearbook,
graduation rites,
diploma cover,
graduation clearance,
miscellaneous graduation expenses.

The school’s ability to require payment for participation in ceremonies may not always be identical to its power to withhold the diploma itself. Participation in a ceremony and recognition of degree completion are related but not identical matters. A student may have stronger arguments concerning the release of the actual diploma than regarding optional ceremonial items.

43. Can a school release records “without prejudice” to collection?

Yes, and in many cases this is the most balanced solution.

A school that truly believes it is owed money can:

release the records,
expressly reserve its right to collect,
demand payment separately,
use ordinary legal collection remedies if needed.

This avoids disproportionate harm to the student while preserving the school’s financial claim. Where the claim is disputed or relatively small compared to the harm caused by non-release, this approach may be especially reasonable.

44. The principle against unjust enrichment works both ways

A school may argue that releasing credentials despite unpaid lawful tuition allows the student to benefit without paying. A student may argue that withholding earned credentials over unsupported or inflated charges allows the school to abuse its position.

The law tries to prevent unjust enrichment on either side. The true legal answer depends on which party is acting beyond what is fair and lawful.

45. Evidence students should gather immediately

A student facing withheld records should collect:

enrollment forms,
school handbook,
tuition assessment forms,
official receipts,
payment screenshots,
promissory notes,
previous clearances,
emails with registrar or cashier,
text messages regarding billing,
statement of account,
graduation notices,
proof of completion of academic requirements,
deadlines from employer, board, or new school.

The case is much easier to evaluate when the paper trail is complete.

46. A practical escalation path for students

A student in the Philippines dealing with withheld TOR or diploma due to alleged balance should usually proceed as follows:

Step 1: Request an itemized statement of account

Ask for:

amount,
basis,
school year covered,
prior payments credited,
penalties explained.

Step 2: Gather proof of payment and school documents

Compare your records with theirs.

Step 3: Submit a written request for release or partial certification

State the urgency and attach supporting documents.

Step 4: Use internal grievance channels

Elevate to registrar, finance office, dean, school head, or legal office.

Step 5: Send a formal demand if needed

A written demand sharpens the issues.

Step 6: File an administrative complaint

Go to CHED, DepEd, or the proper regulator, depending on the institution.

Step 7: Consider civil action where necessary

Especially if the withholding is clearly wrongful and causing substantial damage.

47. What schools should do to avoid liability

Schools that want to protect themselves should:

disclose fees clearly,
keep accurate ledgers,
issue receipts properly,
resolve disputes promptly,
avoid vague “accountability” labels,
provide appeal channels,
distinguish final credentials from optional items,
avoid using retention as punishment,
consider release without prejudice to collection.

The more transparent and proportionate the school’s conduct, the stronger its legal position.

48. What students should avoid

Students should avoid:

relying only on verbal assurances,
losing original receipts,
assuming every school charge is invalid,
waiting until the last minute before requesting documents,
making purely emotional accusations without records,
ignoring admitted obligations while only arguing fairness.

A strong student claim is factual, documented, and precise.

49. The most important legal distinction: valid collectible debt versus oppressive withholding

This is the heart of the issue.

A school may have a valid collectible debt claim and still be wrong in the way it enforces that claim.

For example:

A school might be owed money, but still act unlawfully by refusing any accounting.
A school might have some collection right, but still act oppressively by indefinitely withholding all credentials.
A school might be entitled to seek payment, but not to inflate the amount or impose undisclosed penalties.

Thus, the real legal question is often not just whether money is owed, but whether the school’s chosen method of pressure is lawful and proportionate.

50. Bottom line

In the Philippines, a school’s retention of a TOR, diploma, or other academic records due to an alleged balance is a legally sensitive matter. Schools, especially private schools, may have some authority to insist on settlement of valid obligations. But that authority is not absolute. It is limited by:

law,
regulation,
contractual fairness,
due process,
educational policy,
and the student’s legitimate right to access earned academic records.

The key questions are always:

Is the balance real, lawful, and documented?
Was it properly disclosed?
Was the student given notice and a chance to contest it?
Is the school withholding only what is legally defensible?
Is the withholding proportionate, or is it arbitrary and oppressive?

Where the balance is vague, unsupported, inflated, already paid, or unfairly imposed, the student has strong grounds to challenge retention. Where the school is dealing with a clearly documented and lawful obligation, its position is stronger, though it must still act reasonably and in good faith.

In many cases, the most balanced legal position is this: a school may pursue lawful collection, but it should not turn academic credentials into indefinite leverage where the claim is disputed, poorly supported, or enforced in an abusive manner.