ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 157556.� April 8, 2003]

PIEDAD vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 8 2003.

G.R. No. 157556 (Fernando P. Piedad vs. Hon. Commission on Audit.)

In accordance with Rule 65 and other related 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 which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-compliance therewith, particularly for failure to give an explanation why service was not done personally as required by Rule 13, Section 11 in relation to Rule 56, Section 2(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for failure thereof to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Commission on Audit in rendering the challenged decision which, on the contrary, appears to be in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE