ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135296. January 20, 1999]

ROSARIO S. FERNANDO, et al. vs. UCCP, INC.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

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

G.R. No. 135296 (Rosario S. Fernando and Raul G. Fernando vs. UCCP, Inc., engaged in renting realty under said business style.)

The motions of petitioners for first and second extension of time totalling thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari are DENIED, the affidavits of service of the motions on the respondents and the Court of Appeals not being in accord with Section 13, Rule 13, in relation to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, since petitioners failed to indicate the place of such service.

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 requirement no. 2, the affidavit of service of the petition on the respondent and the Court of Appeals not being in accord with Rule 13, Section 13 in relation to Rule 45, Section 3 of the aforesaid Rules since petitioners failed to indicate the place of such service; besides, the petition was filed late in view of the foregoing denial of the motions for extension of time to file the same.

Accordingly, the additional payment of legal fees in the amount of P202.00 for sheriff's fee and clerk's commission under O.R. Nos. 9503277 and 9504905 dated October 19, 1998 and the petitioners' motion for leave to admit verified amended, supplemental and/or amplificatory petition in support of the aforesaid main petition as well as the aforementioned amended, supplemental and/or amplificatory petition are all NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE