ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139056. September 6, 1999]

PALUERO vs. TORMO, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

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

G.R. No. 139056 (Florife R. Paluero vs. Gracita G. Tormo, et al.)

The motion of petitioner for second extension of fifteen (15) days from 9 August 1999 within which to file petition for review on certiorari is DENIED, petitioner having been granted in the resolution of 2 August 1999 a non-extendible thirty (30) days extension within which to file the petition.

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 extended period granted in the resolution of 2 August 1999 in accordance with Section 5 (a), Rule 56;

(b) state the material date of filing of her motion for reconsideration of the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals in accordance with Sections 4(b) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56; and

(c) submit a certification, duly executed by petitioner herself, that no other action or proceeding involving the same issues raised in this case has been filed or is pending before this Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, with the undertaking to inform the Court of any similar case filed or pending in any court or quasi-judicial agency that may thereafter come to her knowledge in accordance with Section 5, Rule 7, Section 4(e), Rule 45 in relation to Section 2, Rule 42 and Sections 4 and 5(d), Rule 56.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE