Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NELIA ATILLO v. BUENAVENTURA BOMBAY

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 166944 2014-08-18	JUANITO MAGSINO v. ELENA DE OCAMPO BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioner did not deserve the liberal application of the rules of procedure that he was seeking. Indeed, the dismissal of his petition for review was in full accord with the following pronouncement upon a similar provision in the Rules of Court made in Atillo v. Bombay,[43] as follows: The mandatory tenor of Section 2(d), Rule 42 with respect to the requirement of attaching clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts is discernible and well settled. In this case, the mandatory or directory nature of the requirement with respect to the attachment of pleadings and other material portions of the record is put in question.
	GR No. 173342 2010-10-13	ZAMBOANGA FOREST MANAGERS CORP. v. NEW PACIFIC TIMBER PEREZ, J.
While it is admittedly the petitioner who decides at the outset which relevant documents will be appended to his petition, it has been held that the CA has the duty to ensure that "the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory. The practical aspect of this duty is to enable the CA to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition."[25] With the third page missing from ZFMC's copy of the 25 June 1985 decision in MNR Case No. 4023 and the particulars it omitted as a consequence, we find that the CA's directive for the submission of the pleadings the parties filed in said case and in O.P. Case No. 5613 was clearly necessary for the proper appreciation of the facts and the issues relevant to the petition before it. Considering that a petitioner's failure to attach material and relevant documents to his petition is a sufficient ground to dismiss it,[26] the CA correctly dealt with ZFMC's failure to comply with its directive by dismissing the petition pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43 of Rules which provides as follows: Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
	GR No. 178527 2009-11-27	JOVEN YUKI v. WELLINGTON CO DEL CASTILLO, J.
We do not agree. Section 2 of Rule 42 does not require that all the pleadings and documents filed before the lower courts must be attached as annexes to the petition. Aside from clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, it merely requires that the petition be accompanied by copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. As to what these pleadings and material portions of the record are, the Rules grants the petitioner sufficient discretion to determine the same. This discretion is of course subject to CA's evaluation whether the supporting documents are sufficient to make out a prima facie case.[23] Thus, Section 3 empowers the CA to dismiss the petition where the allegations contained therein are utterly bereft of evidentiary foundation. Since in this case the CA gave due course to respondent's Petition for Review and proceeded to decide it on the merits, it can be fairly assumed that the appellate court is satisfied that respondent has sufficiently complied with Section 2 of Rule 42.
	GR No. 155025 2007-08-24	COL. ARTURO C. FERRER v. ATTY. ARACELI E. VILLANUEVA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[5] Atillo v. Bombay[6] and Manila Hotel Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[7] we ruled that petitioner's f
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
Obviously, the main reason for the prescribed attachments is to facilitate the review and evaluation of the petition by making readily available to the CA all the orders, resolutions, decisions, pleadings, transcripts, documents, and pieces of evidence that are material and relevant to the issues presented in the petition without relying on the case records of the lower court. The rule is the reviewing court can determine the merits of the petition solely on the basis of the submissions by the parties[14] without the use of the records of the court a quo. It is a fact that it takes several months before the records are elevated to the higher court, thus the resulting delay in the review of the petition. The attachment of all essential and necessary papers and documents is mandatory; otherwise, the petition can be rejected outright under Sec. 7 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which provides:Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
Obviously, the main reason for the prescribed attachments is to facilitate the review and evaluation of the petition by making readily available to the CA all the orders, resolutions, decisions, pleadings, transcripts, documents, and pieces of evidence that are material and relevant to the issues presented in the petition without relying on the case records of the lower court. The rule is the reviewing court can determine the merits of the petition solely on the basis of the submissions by the parties[14] without the use of the records of the court a quo. It is a fact that it takes several months before the records are elevated to the higher court, thus the resulting delay in the review of the petition. The attachment of all essential and necessary papers and documents is mandatory; otherwise, the petition can be rejected outright under Sec. 7 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which provides:Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
	GR NO. 165496 2007-02-12	HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI CARPIO MORALES, J.
In fine, petitioner fell short in his compliance with Section 2 (d) of Rule 42, the mandatory tenor of which is discernible thereunder and is well settled.[24] He has not, however, advanced any strong compelling reasons to warrant a relaxation of the Rules, hence, his petition before the CA was correctly dismissed.
	GR No. 147328 2002-02-20	SPS. ANTON AND EILEEN LIM v. UNI-TAN MARKETING CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
To be sure, the Court has recently upheld the mandatory character of Section 2, Rule 42 requiring duplicate copies or certified true copies of the appealed judgments or final orders.[11] Consequently, we cannot attribute any reversible error to the appellate court for merely following the Rules.
	GR No. 138556 2001-05-09	PIGLAS-KAMAO v. NLRC PANGANIBAN, J.
We agree with petitioners. In Atillo v. Bombay,[6] the Court held that the "the crucial issue to consider x x x is whether or not the documents accompanying the petition before the CA sufficiently supported the allegations therein."