[ G.R. No. 140438. February 9, 2000]

REGINAS INDUSTRIES & DEV'T. CORP. et al. vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 9 2000.

G.R. No. 140438 (Reginas Industries and Development Corporation and Teodorico Zaragosa vs. Court of Appeals, Barfel Development Corporation and Sps. Victor S. Barrios and Aida Barrios.)

In a Resolution dated December 15, 1999, this Court resolved to DENY petitioners' motion dated November 5, 1999, for extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari for failure to serve a copy of the motion on the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 4, Rule 13 in relation to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

On February 1, 2000, this Court received a Motion for Reconsideration of our resolution of December 15, 1999 stating that this Court had denied petitioners' motion on a "demonstrably erroneous premise" that petitioners failed to serve a copy of the motion for extension on the Court of Appeals. It secured a certification from the Court of Appeals to the effect that what petitioners "mailed on November 6, 1999 as its copy of the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, was received by the Court of Appeals on November 15, 1999."

We find petitioners' explanation unsatisfactory and DENY the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 1, 2000, for lack of merit. In the Affidavit of Service of the Motion for Extension, affiant, a member of the law firm representing petitioners, declared that the copy of the Court of Appeals was served personally. However, the Certification from the Court of Appeals, issued to Atty. R.A. Saguisag, referred to a "Motion to Correct" in G.R. No. 140438 (CA-GR. CV NO. 53057) and a "Motion for Extension to File Petition for Review on Certiorari", "which was mailed on November 6, 1999 and received by" the Court of Appeals "on November 15, 1999." We likewise observe markedly different handwriting strokes in the Xerox postal return, Annex B of the Motion for Reconsideration in the entry "Motion to Correct u/6" as against the entry "w/ M/E" which appears to be an insertion below the first entry.

The petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for being filed late on December 9, 1999, due date being November 9, 1999, in view of the denial of petitioners' motion for extension of thirty (30) days within which to file petition in the resolution of December 15, 1999.

The Motion for Time to File Supplemental Verification/Non-Forum Shopping Certification is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION. And the Manifestation dated December 13, 1999 is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com