Pon-an v. Genson
This is a civil case, G.R. No. 241334, decided by the First Division of the Supreme Court on October 3, 2018. The Court denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Rexes Pon-an against Gliceria D. Genson and Ma. Clarence O. Jimenez due to noncompliance with the requirements for filing, including failure to submit a verified statement of the date of receipt of the assailed resolution, attach a certified true copy of the Court of Appeals' resolution, and submit a verified declaration of complete and true copies of the pleading and annexes. The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in denying the petition and showed no reasonable cause for noncompliance with the rules. The Court of Appeals' resolutions dated February 28, 2018, and August 7, 2018, were affirmed.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241334. October 3, 2018.]
REXES PON-AN, petitioner,vs. GLICERIA D. GENSON AND MA. CLARENCE O. JIMENEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 3, 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241334 (Rexes Pon-an v. Gliceria D. Genson and Ma. Clarence O. Jimenez). — The Court resolves to DENY the instant petition for noncompliance with the requirements for the filing of a petition for review on certiorari, particularly:
(1) for failure to submit a verified statement as to the date of receipt of the assailed Resolution dated February 28, 2018; HESIcT
(2) for failure to attach a certified true copy of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Resolution dated February 28, 2018; and
(3) for failure to submit a verified declaration that the pleading and annexes submitted electronically are complete and true copies of the printed document and annexes filed with the Supreme Court, pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC 1 and 11-9-4-SC. 2
In any event, the petition would still be DENIED for failure to show that the CA committed reversible error in denying the petition. The CA correctly ruled that the petition should be dismissed due to procedural infirmities. While petitioner prays for the relaxation of the rules of procedure and the admission of the documents he failed to attach in his petition, he failed to show any reasonable cause justifying his noncompliance with the rules. The relaxation of procedural rules was never intended to be a license for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. 3
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The February 28, 2018 and August 7, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154567 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., on official travel.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Re: Proposed Rules on E-Filing.
2. Re: Proposed Rule for the Efficient Use of Paper.
3.Philippine Savings Bank v. Papa, G.R. No. 200469, January 15, 2018.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU