ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138602. August 4, 1999]

FAUSTINO DY, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 4, 1999.

G.R. No. 138602 (Faustino Dy, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

In accordance with Rule 65 in relation to Rule 46, Rule 56 and other pertinent 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 comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the petition for certiorari for petitioner's failure to:

a) file the petition within the period provided in Section 4, Rule 65;

b) submit a certification against forum shopping duly signed and executed by petitioner himself in accordance with Section 5, Rule 7, Section 1, Rule 65, Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56;

c) properly verify the petition in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 in relation to Section 1, Rule 56 as a consequence of which the petition is treated as an unsigned pleading which, under Section 3, Rule 7, produces no legal effect.

At any rate, even if the requirements were complied with, the petition would nevertheless be dismissed on the ground that it was evidently resorted to as a substitute for the lost remedy of an appeal by that it was evidently resorted to as a substitute for the lost remedy of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.

Accordingly, petitioner's manifestation dated 14 May 1999 stating his intention to file the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and his payment of the prescribed legal fees as shown by the attached postal money order is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE