FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215016. February 11, 2015.]
CONSUMERS' RIGHTS WATCH BICOL, INC., ALBERTO ARMERO, ARTEMIO BLANCO, RICHARD ALZAGA, ERASTO ALERTA, AND CESAR RODRIGUEZ, petitioners, vs. ALBAY POWER AND ENERGY CORP. AND SMC GLOBAL POWER HOLDINGS [SMCGPH], OLD ALECO INTERIM BOARD REPRESENTED BY BISHOP JOEL BAYLON, NEW ALECO INTERIM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ATTY. BARTOLOME RAYCO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 11, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215016 (Consumers' Rights Watch Bicol, Inc., Alberto Armero, Artemio Blanco, Richard Alzaga, Erasto Alerta, and Cesar Rodriguez v. Albay Power and Energy Corp. and SMC Global Power Holdings [SMCGPH], Old Aleco Interim Board represented by Bishop Joel Baylon, New Aleco Interim Board represented by Atty. Bartolome Rayco). — The petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a careful review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition due to the following procedural defects: (a) failure of the parties and their counsel to indicate their contact details in pleadings filed before the Court in accordance with the July 10, 2007 En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC; (b) failure to show competent evidence of identity considering that the affiant in the affidavit of service was not shown to have exhibited any current identification document, conformably with Sections 6 and 12 of Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by the February 19, 2008 En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC; (c) the petition is not accompanied by a compact disc and a verified declaration required under A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC (Re: Proposed Rules on E-filing) and 11-9-4-SC (Re: Efficient Use of Paper Rule) in relation to Section 5 (e), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court; and (d) failure to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, as the petition should have been filed before the Court of Appeals before resort may be had before the Court, failing which the petition must, perforce, be dismissed. DCcHIS
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court