ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135333. January 20, 1999]

VERBEST CORP., et al. vs. SPRINT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

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

G.R. No. 135333 (Verbest Corporation and Melissa Principe vs. Sprint Transport Services, Inc.)

The motion of petitioners for a second extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for failure to submit an affidavit of service of the motion on the respondent as required in Section 13, Rule 13, in relation to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

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. 5, petitioners having failed to submit a certification, duly executed by petitioners themselves, 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 petition was filed late on October 15, 1998, due date being October 13, 1998.

The explanation of the petitioners for the non-personal service of a copy of the petition on the respondent's counsel is NOTED.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE