ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. Nos. 135142-43. January 20, 1999]

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ vs. HON. AMELITA G. TOLENTINO, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your, information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 20, 1999.

G.R. Nos. 135142-43 [formerly UDK-12628-29] (Miguel Rodriguez vs. Hon. Amelita G. Tolentino, et al.)

Acting on the motion of petitioner for reconsideration of the resolution of October 19, 1998 which denied his motion for an extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari for failure to serve a copy of the motion on the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 4, Rule 13, in relation to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the same with FINALITY, no compelling reason having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought.

In accordance with the provisions of Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, and Rule 65, in relation to Rules 46 and 56, governing petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, as amended and provided in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure effective July 1, 1997, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the following requirements shall be entertained:

1.�������� full payment upon the filing of the petition of the prescribed docket and other lawful fees, together with the deposit for costs, within the reglementary period, unless the petitioner has theretofore done so:

2.�������� appropriate service of a copy of the petition upon the adverse party or parties and on the lower court, tribunal, agency or entity concerned, with the required proof of service thereof;

3.�������� a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo or the official authorized to do so;

4.�������� a verified statement indicating the material dates when notice of the judgment, final order or resolution was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received; and

5.�������� a certification under oath by petitioner that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or 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 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.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirements nos. 4 and 5, petitioner having failed to submit a verified statement of the dates of receipt of the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals and of the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision as well as a certification, duly executed by petitioner himself, that no other action or proceeding involving the same issues raised in this case has been filed or is pending before this Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; besides, the aforesaid petition was filed late on September 30, 1998, due date being August 31, 1998.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE