ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[UDK-13328. February 24, 2004]

BLANCAS, SR. vs. ABALOS

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 24 2004 .

UDK-13328 (Luis H. Blancas, Sr. vs. Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos of the COMELEC with his Commissioners, namely: Luzviminda C. Tangcangco, Rufino S.B. Javier, Ralph C. Lantion, Methol K. Sadain, Resurreccion Z. Borja and Florentine A. Tuazon.)

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

(a) non-submission of proof of service (e.g., a written admission of the party served / an affidavit of the party serving / registry receipts) of the petition on the adverse party as required by Rule 56, Section 2(c), Rule 46, Section 3 (3^rd par.) in relation to Rule 56, Section 2 (1^st par.), and Rule 13, Section 13;

(b) insufficiency of the petition in form, as it lacks proper verification as required by Rule 65, Section 1 in relation to Rule 7, Section 4;

(c) failure to pay docket and other fees and deposit for costs in violation of Rule 46, Section 3 in relation to Rule 56, Section 2;

(d) failure to state material dates showing when notice of judgment, final order or resolution subject of the petition was received, when a motion for reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received, to show that petition was filed on time pursuant to Rule 65, Section 4 in relation to Rule 46, Section 3 (2^nd par.);

(e) failure to accompany petition with a clearly legible duplicate original, or certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections in violation of Rule 65, Section 1 and Rule 46, Section 3 in relation to Rule 56, Section 2; and

(f) lack of a certification against forum shopping, that is, a certification under oath by petitioner that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues thereof in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom as required by Rule 65, Section 1, Rule 46, Section 3 in relation Rule 56, Section 2 and Rule 7, Section 5.

Puno, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE