ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138323. July 19, 1999]

OSCAR C. CAMARA vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 19, 1999.

G.R. No. 138323 (Oscar C. Camara vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

The motion of petitioner's counsel for extension of thirty (30) days from 10 June 1999 within which to file petition for review on certiorari is DENIED, previous warning of no further extension having been given in the resolution of 14 June 1999. His comment on respondent's opposition to his entry of appearance with motion for extension of time to file petition is NOTED.

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:

(a) failure to take the appeal within the extended period granted in the resolution of 14 June 1999 in accordance with Section 5(e), Rule 56 in view of the denial of petitioner's second motion for extension of time to file petition;

(b) failure to copy the docket and other fees on time in accordance with Sections 2 and 3, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(c), Rule 56;

(c) failure to submit with the petition a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals in accordance with Sections 4 (d) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56; and

(d) failure to submit a certification, duly executed by petitioner himself, 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 his 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.

Accordingly, the manifestation of petitioner dated 12 July 1999 submitting a certification on non-forum shopping is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE