ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137575. April 12, 1999]

BIENVENIDO ALILAIN, JR. vs. SERAFIN G. MALEFICIO.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR. 12, 1999.

G.R. No. 137575 (Bienvenido Alilain, Jr. vs. Serafin G. Maleficio.)

In accordance with Rule 45 in relation to Rule 56 and other pertinent provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, only petitions which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for:

(a) lack of correct statement of material date of receipt of the order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the questioned decision of the Regional Trial Court, in violation of Sections 4(b) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56;

(b) non-submission of a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the questioned order dated 27 January 1999 denying the motion for reconsideration pursuant to Sections 4 (d) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56; and

(c) non-submission of a proper affidavit of service of copies of the petition on the Regional Trial Court and on the Solicitor General, it appearing that the petition was served on 19 February 1999 but the affidavit of service was subscribed and sworn to long before such service or on 19 September 1996, in violation of Section 13, Rule 13, and Section 3, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56.

At any rate, even if the said requirements were duly complied with, the petition would nevertheless be denied for lack of merit as well as for being prosecuted manifestly for delay and for having raised questions which are too unsubstantial to require consideration pursuant to Section 5, Rule 45, and Section 5(b), Rule 56 of the same Rules.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE