ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138883. July 21, 1999]

HEIRS OF THE LATE LEONILA ALCANTARA, vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 21, 1999.

G.R. No. 138883 (Heirs of the late Leonila Alcantara, represented by Teresita Viernes vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.)

In accordance with Rule 65 in relation to Rule 46, 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 comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court RESOLVES to DIMISS the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus for petitioners' failure to:

a) submit a affidavit of service of copies of the petition on respondent and on the Court of Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Rule 13 in relation to Section 13, Rule 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46, and Section 2, Rule 56;

b) give a written explanation why service of aforesaid petition on respondent and on the Court of Appeals was not done personally as a consequence of which the same is deemed as not filed pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13; and

c) properly verify the petition in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65, as a consequence of which the petition is treated as an unsigned pleading which under Section 3, Rule 7, produces no legal effect.

Accordingly, the supplemental petition dated 01 July 1999 with prayer that it be considered part of the aforesaid main petition for certiorari, prohibition and, mandamus is 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