ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[ G.R. No. 136764. February 22, 1999]

HEIRS OF LEODENILO LURA, vs. DENR, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 22, 1999.

G.R. No. 136764 (Heirs of Leodenilo Lura, represented by Isidro and Vicente Q. Lura vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, et al.)

The notice of death of the original petitioner Leodenilo Lura and substitution of said petitioner by his heirs, Vicente and Isidro, both surnamed Lura, and the appearance of Atty. Salvador O. Pacana of Venadas and Pacana Law office, 2nd Floor, Leonila Building cor. Velez and C. Pacana Streets, Cagayan de Oro City, as counsel for said petitioners are NOTED. The motion of petitioners' counsel for an extension of fifteen (15) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file petition for review on certiorari or other relevant pleading is DENIED for failure to pay the amount of P420.00 as balance of the deposit for costs, to serve copy of the motion on the Court of Appeals as well as to submit the registry receipts as proof of service by registered mail of the motion on respondents, and a written explanation for such non-personal service, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 45 in relation to Sections 5(c) and (d), Rule 56, and Sections 11 and 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended.

In accordance with Rule 45 in relation to Rule 56 and other pertinent provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, only petitions which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for:

(a)������� failure to take the appeal within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days in accordance with Section 2, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(a), Rule 56;

(b)������� failure to pay the amount of P420.00 as balance of the deposit for costs in accordance with Section 3, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(c), Rule 56;

(c)������� failure to state the material date of the filing of their motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision in accordance with Sections 4(b) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56;

(d)������� failure to submit together with the petition the postal registry receipts as proof of service by registered mail of copies of the petition on respondents and on the Court of Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Rule 13 and Section 3, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56; and

(e)������� failure to give a written explanation why service of copies of the petition on respondents and on the Court of Appeals was not done personally, as a consequence of which the petition is deemed as not filed, in accordance with Section 11, Rule 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 45 and Section 5(d), Rule 56.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com