ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139160. August 9, 1999]

BENEDICTO ORENSE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 9, 1999.

G.R. No. 139160 (Benedicto Orense 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 with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order for failure to file the petition and pay the prescribed legal fees and deposit for costs within the period fixed in Section 4, Rule 65 and in accordance with Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2(b), Rule 56.

In any event, even if the petition were filed and the prescribed legal fees and deposit for costs paid on time, the petition would still be dismissed for failure to sufficiently show that the questioned judgment of the Court of Appeals is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE