ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138096. July 28, 1999]

FEDERICO FELICES vs. HON. FRANCISCO V. MAZO, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 28, 1999.

G.R. No. 138096 (Federico Felices vs. Hon. Francisco V. Mazo, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Samar, Branch 31, Calbayog City, Julian Reballos, et al.)

In accordance with Rule 65 in relation to Rule 46, Rule 56 and other pertinent provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed with the Supreme Court, only petitions which are accompanied by or comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the petition for certiorari for petitioner's failure to:

a) file the petition within the period provided in Section 4, Rule 65, in view of the denial of the motion to file aforesaid petition in the resolution of 17 May 1999;

b) timely remit the amount of P420.00 as balance of the deposit for costs in accordance with Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56;

c) state the dates of receipt of the assailed orders of the Regional Trial Court dated 22 December 1998 and 28 January 1999 as required by Section 4, Rule 65, Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56;

d) submit an affidavit of service of the petition on private respondents in accordance with Section 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 and Section2, Rule 56;

e) give a written explanation why the filing and service of aforesaid petition on private respondents were not done personally as a consequence of which the petition is deemed as not filed pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 in relation to Section 2, Rule 42; and

f) attach clearly legible original or certified true copies of the assailed orders of the Regional Trial Court dated 28 January 1999 and 16 February 1999 in accordance with Section 1, Rule 65, and Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56.

At any rate, even if the said requirements were complied with, the petition would nevertheless be dismissed for petitioner's failure to adduce any compelling reason to warrant his disregard of judicial hierarchy in accordance with Section 4, Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended and for this Court to assume jurisdiction over the case in the first instance. Accordingly, petitioner's motion for admission of the petition for certiorari is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE