ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139604. September 27, 1999]

DAVAO HOLIDAY TRANSPORT SERVICES CORP. et al. vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 27 1999.

G.R. No. 139604 (Davao Holiday Transport Services Corporation, et al. 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 petitioners' failure to:

(a)������� file the petition within the period fixed in Section 4, Rule 65;

(b)������� timely pay the docket and other legal Fees in accordance with Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56; and

(c)������� give written explanation why filing of the petition with the Court was not done personally as a consequence of which the petition is deemed as not filed in accordance with Section 11, Rule 13 in relation to Section 2(c), Rule 56.

Moreover, this special civil action for certiorari is a wrong remedy under the Rules and evidently used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

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