ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137188. February 17, 1999]

MARIA VILLAFUERTE vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 17, 1999.

G.R. No. 137188 (Maria Villafuerte vs. Felipe Baltazar, Gemina Baltazar, Consuelo Baltazar, Erlinda Baltazar, Wilfredo Baltazar, et al. and the Honorable Court of Appeals.)

Petitioner Maria Villafuerte assails the dismissal of her dismissal of her appeal by the Court of Appeals for non-payment of docket fees within the prescribed period.

The petition must fail, for obviously it is sought to be made a substitute for the lost appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Petitioner's remedy inasmuch as what she is questioning is an action of the Court of Appeals, was to file within 15 days from receipt of the order denying her motion for reconsideration a petition for review under Rule 45. Here, petitioner received a copy of the denial order on December 2, 1998, yet she failed the instant petition, purportedly under Rule 65 only on February 5, 1999. And it should be stressed that the dismissal of the appeal was proper, pursuant as it was to Section 1(c), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Furthermore, it is to be noted that there is no deposit for costs and sheriff's fee and there is, as well, no proof of service on the Court of Appeals, technical flaws which by themselves are sufficient grounds for the outright dismissal of the petition,

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE