March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[UDK No. 14623 : March 07, 2012]
SCAD SERVICES PTE. LTD. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER 14TH DIVISION, JORGE YANSON, EDDIE GOLDE, EDGAR NOCHE, ET AL.
UDK No. 14623 (SCAD Services Pte. Ltd. v. The Court of Appeals, Former 14th Division, Jorge Yanson, Eddie Golde, Edgar Noche, et al.)
RESOLUTION
The Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Court of Appeals in rendering the challenged decision which, on the contrary, appears to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence. Petitioner SCAD Services Pte. Ltd., as principal, failed to show that Paquito Garcia is duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment as independent contractor and has substantial capital, tools and equipment necessary to conduct an independent contracting business.
Furthermore, in accordance with Rule 65 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure governing petitions for certiorari, inhibition and mandamus filed with the Supreme Court, only those which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. The instant special civil action of certiorari is found non-compliant therewith, particularly for: cralaw
(1) | insufficiency of the petition in form as the verification is signed by counsel for petitioner without proof of authority to sign for and on behalf of petitioner; | |
(2) | failure to pay docket and other fees and the deposit for costs, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56; | |
(3) | lack of a certification against forum shopping, that is, a certification under oath by petitioner that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues thereof in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the different divisions thereof or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom as required by Section 1, Rule 65, Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56 and Section 5, Rule 7. |
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, J., no part; Sereno, J., designated additional member, per Raffle dated February 13, 2012.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court