EN BANC
[G.R. No. 242246. November 27, 2018.]
BETHSAIDA D. LOPEZ, petitioner,vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated NOVEMBER 27, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242246 (Bethsaida D. Lopez vs. Commission on Elections). — In accordance with Rule 65 and other related 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 which strictly comply with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for mandamus for non-compliance therewith, particularly for —
(i) lack of proof of service (e.g., a written admission of the party served, or an affidavit of the party serving, or registry receipts) of the petition on the tribunal concerned as required by Section 2 (c), Rule 56, Section 3 (3rd par.), Rule 46 in relation to Section 2 (1st par.), Rule 56, and Section 13, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended;
(ii) insufficiency of the petition in form as it lacks verification as required by Section 3, Rule 65 in relation to Section 4, Rule 7, same Rules;
(iii) failure to file the required number of plain copies of the petition as required by the Efficient Use of Paper Rule in relation to Section 6 (2nd par.), Rule 65 in relation to Section 2 (c), Rule 56, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended;
(iv) lack of a certification against forum shopping, i.e., a certification under oath by petitioner that she has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in the different divisions thereof or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, she must state the status of the same; and if she should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, she undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom as required by Section 3, Rule 65, Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56 and Section 5, Rule 7, same Rules; and
(v) failure to indicate petitioner's contact details, e.g., telephone number, fax number, cellular phone number or e-mail address, pursuant to the En Banc Resolution dated July 10, 2007 in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC (Re: Statement of Contact Details of Parties or Their Counsels in All Papers Filed with the Supreme Court).
In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for lack of merit." Peralta and Tijam, JJ., on official business. (48)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court