ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 133120. July 1, 1999]

FELICITO P. PLAZA, et al. vs. PLDT CO., INC.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 1, 1999.

G.R. No. 133120 (Felicito P. Plaza, et al. vs. Philippine Long Distance Co., Inc.).

The motion of the petitioners for an extension of twelve (12) day within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.

In accordance with the provisions of Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, and Rule 65 in relation to Rule 46 and 56, governing petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, as amended and provided in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure affective 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 RESOLVED to DISMISS the petition for review on certiorari for non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirements nos. 3 & 4, petitioners having failed to submit a duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals dated February 2, 1998 as well as a verified statement of the dates of receipt of the aforesaid Court of Appeals' resolution and of the filing of their motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution.

At any rate, even if the said requirements were complied with, the petition would nevertheless be denied for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals has committed a reversible error in the questioned judgment. Martinez, J., is on leave.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE