ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136215. February 24, 1999]

PAUL C. NESBITT, et al., vs. VIRGINIA LLUCH BARTOLOME.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 24, 1999.

G.R. No. 136215 (Intestate Estate of Paul C. Nesbitt, Voltaire I. Rovira as Co-Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Paul C. Nesbitt and Uriel G. Borja vs. Virginia Lluch Bartolome.)

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 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 failure of petitioner to:

(a) accompany the petition with clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the questioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Sections 4 (d) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56; and

(b) submit a written explanation of the non-personal service of copies of the petition on respondent and on the Court of Appeals as required in Section 11, Rule 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 45 and Section 5 (d), Rule 56.

Moreover, the affidavit of service of copies of the petition on respondent and on the Court of Appeals is ineffectual, since it was subscribed and sworn to on December 14, 1998 but actual service was made on December 15, 1998 as borne out by the postal registry receipts, in violation of Section 13, Rule 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 45.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE