ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137015. February 22, 1999]

RAMON V. DUMDUM vs. THE HON. ARTURO C. MOJICA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

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

G.R. No. 137015 (Ramon V. Dumdum vs. The Hon. Arturo C. Mojica, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, et al.)

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:

(a)������� failure to remit the amount of P500.00 as deposit for costs and P22.00 as balance of the deposit for sheriff's fee in accordance with Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56;

(b)������� failure to submit the postal registry receipts as proof of service by registered mail of copies of the petition on respondents in accordance with Section 13, Rule 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 and the first paragraph of Section 2, Rule 56;

(c)������� failure to give a written explanation why the service of copies of the petition on the Ombudsman, the City Prosecutor and on private respondents 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 2(c), Rule 56;

(d)������� failure to submit the duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed resolution in accordance with Section 1, Rule 65 and Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56; and

(e)������� 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 "knowledge, information and belief," as a consequence of which the petition is treated as an unsigned pleading, which under Section 3, Rule 7, produces no legal effect.

At any rate, even if the petition were sufficient in form and the foregoing requirements were complied with, the petition would nevertheless be dismissed for being premature as petitioner failed to file the requisite motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution before respondent Ombudsman prior to availment of the special civil action of certiorari and there are no sufficient allegations in the petition 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