ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137538. April 7, 1999]

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. HON. FRANCISCO B. IBAY, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 7, 1999.

G.R. No. 137538 (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Hon. Francisco B. Ibay, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 135, et al.)

The manifestation and motion of the Solicitor General dated 5 March 1999 praying for extension of ten (10) days from 7 March 1999 within which to file petition for certiorari is NOTED and GRANTED.

In accordance with Rule 65 in relation to Rule 46, Rule 56 and other pertinent provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed with the Supreme Court, only petitions which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the petition for certiorari for being insufficient in form due to lack of a proper verification of the petition in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65, since the verification was based on affiant's "own knowledge and information," as a consequence of which, the petition is, treated as an unsigned pleading which, under Section 3, Rule 7, produces no legal effect; besides, the petition is premature as no motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision was filed with respondent court prior to availment of this petition for certiorari and there are not sufficient allegations to bring the case within the recognized exceptions to this rule.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE