ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139294. September 8, 1999]

SPS. MANUEL vs. SPS. HERNANDEZ

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 8 1999.

G.R. No. 139294 (Spouses Jose and Cristeta Manuel vs. Spouses Antonio and Belen Hernandez.)

In accordance with Rule 45 in relation to the 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 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 petitioners' failure to state the material date of filing of their motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in accordance with Sections 4 (b) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56. Moreover, the accompanying affidavit of service of the petition on respondent and the Court of Appeals is a nullity, as it violates Section 13, Rule 13, and Section 3 and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56, considering that said affidavit was notarized on 29 July 1999 but was signed by affiant on 30 July 1999.

The ex-parte manifestation and motion of petitioners dated 30 July 1999 stating the manner of filing and service of the aforesaid petition on respondents and the Court of Appeals is NOTED and GRANTED, and their submission of additional copies of the petition is NOTED.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE