[ G.R. No. 142978. June 28, 2000]

RODOLFO G. QUILON vs. HON. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28 2000.

G.R. No. 142978 (Rodolfo G. Quilon vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, N.V. Netherlands Insurance Company, Philippine Branch.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals denying his motion to Admit Amended Petition. The amended petition was filed beyond the reglementary period under Rule 65. And its dismissal thus in effect upheld the Court of Appeals dismissal of petitioner's original petition for certiorari on the ground that the certification on non-forum shopping was not signed by petitioner but by his counsel in violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court.

The core of the present controversy is a complaint filed by petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City against private respondent to enforce a claim under a fire insurance policy issued by the private respondent for the loss of petitioner's house and its contents through fire that occurred on July 5, 1991.

Upon trial, the trial court promulgated a decision denying petitioner's claim.

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal but the same was dismissed for failure to pay docket fees within the reglementary period.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which rendered the above-assailed decision.

Thus, the instant petition which is bereft of merit.

The certification against forum shopping is to be executed by the petitioner and not by counsel - a certification by counsel is a defective certification. Clearly equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement under Section 2, Rule 42 in relation to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This lapse constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition (Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 30 [1998]).

Likewise, the Court considers petitioner's act of filing a motion to admit an amended petition to be in vain for being filed late. The filing of an amended petition does not retroact to the date of the filing of the original; hence, the statute of limitations runs until the submission of the amendment (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 293 SCRA 440 [1998]).

A party who fails to observe very elementary rules of procedure which are mandatory causes his own predicament, and to exculpate him from the compulsory coverage of such rules is to undermine the stability of the judicial process, as the bench and bar will be confounded by such irritating uncertainties as when to obey and when to ignore the rules (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 755 [1998]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

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