ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 166789.� June 22, 2005]

CHAN vs. TONGSON

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 22 2005.

G.R. No. 166789 (Jose Lindy G. Chan, Jr., et al. vs. Rogelio Q. Tongson, et al.)

R E S O L U T I O N

Acting upon petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated March 2, 2005 which denied their motion for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari for their failure to pay within the reglementary period the balance of P500.00 as deposit for costs and legal research fund fee in accordance with Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, and finding that petitioners have complied with the aforesaid infirmity, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. However, the Court has already denied the petition for review on certiorari subsequently filed by the petitioners in the Resolution dated April 25, 2005, on the ground, among others, that petitioners failed to properly verify the petition in accordance with Section 1, Rule 45 in relation to Section 4, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court and A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC since the aforesaid verification is based on affiants' knowledge and belief, as a consequence of which, the petition is treated as an unsigned pleading which under Section 3, Rule 7, produces no legal effect.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE