ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139660. September 27, 1999]

NICANOR SANTIAGO, JR., et al. vs. HERMINIA F. TAURO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

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

G.R. No. 139660 (Nicanor Santiago, Jr., et al. vs. Herminia F. Tauro.)

The motion of petitioners for extension of thirty (30) days from 18 August 1999 within which to file petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for petitioners' failure to give a written explanation why filing of the motion with the Court was not done personally as a consequence of which the motion is deemed as not filed in accordance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

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 petitioners' 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 petitioners' motion for extension of time to file petition; and

(b) submit with the petition proof of service of copies of the petition on the Court of Appeals executed by the party serving containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service in accordance with Section 13, Rule 13 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56.

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