ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138970. September 6, 1999]

RADIO PHILS. NETWORK, INC. vs. DOMESTIC SATELLITE PHILS., INC.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated SEPT 6, 1999.

G.R. No. 138970 (Radio Philippines Network, Inc. vs. Domestic Satellite Phils., Inc.)

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 are accompanied by or 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 petitioner's failure to:

(a) take the appeal within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days in accordance with Section 2, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(a), Rule 56, in view of the denial of petitioner's motion for extension of time to file petition; and

(b) state the material dates of receipt of the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals and filing of petitioner's motions for reconsideration of said decision in accordance with Sections 4 (b) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56.

In any event, even if the petition were treated as a special civil action under Rule 65 in accordance with petitioner's averment, the petition would nevertheless be dismissed for being a wrong remedy, it being evidently used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

The Court further RESOLVES to: (a) NOTE the manifestation of respondent Domestic Satellite Philippines, Inc. dated 17 August 1999 stating, among other matters, that the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner under Rule 65 of the Rules was filed under false pretenses and contrary to the allegations made in petitioner's motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and that petitioner withheld from the Court material dates; and, (b) accordingly NOTE WITHOUT ACTION [1] the reply/comment of petitioner dated 30 August 1999on the foregoing manifestation of respondent dated 17 August 1999 and the resolution of 21 July 1999 which denied petitioner's motion for extension of time to file petition, and [2] the second manifestation of respondent dated 30 August 1999 stating in the main that Court's denial of petitioner's motion for extension of time to file petition effectively denied petitioner's appeal and renders the decision of the Court of Appeals final and executory.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE