ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138812. July 19, 1999]

MINORS MARLON & MICHELLE A. AURELIO vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 19, 1999.

G.R. No. 138812 (Minors Marlon A. Aurelio and Michelle A. Aurelio represented by their guardians Atty. Mateo B. Altarejos and Carolina Altarejos vs. Court of Appeals, 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:

(a) failure to file the petition and pay the legal fees and deposit for costs within the period fixed in Section 4, Rule 65; and

(b) failure to state the material date of filing of the motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in accordance with Section 4, Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46, as amended, and Section 2, Rule 56.

At any rate; even if said requirements were complied with, the petition would nevertheless be dismissed for being a wrong remedy under the Rule.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE