Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Court of Appeals: Special Seventeenth Division

    Uploaded by

    Netweight
    The Court of Appeals dismissed Lydia Asiado's Petition for Review against Le Bon Eirres Pascua for failing to comply with requirements. Specifically, the Petition did not include necessary documents from the case record and did not indicate the IBP receipt number and MCLE Certificate of Compliance for Lydia Asiado's counsel. Dismissal was warranted according to Rules 42(2) and (3) of failing to include required documents and information to support the Petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Court of Appeals: Special Seventeenth Division

    Uploaded by

    Netweight
    38 views3 pages
    The Court of Appeals dismissed Lydia Asiado's Petition for Review against Le Bon Eirres Pascua for failing to comply with requirements. Specifically, the Petition did not include necessary documents from the case record and did not indicate the IBP receipt number and MCLE Certificate of Compliance for Lydia Asiado's counsel. Dismissal was warranted according to Rules 42(2) and (3) of failing to include required documents and information to support the Petition.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    _UPLOADS_PDF_196_SP__168041_02262021

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals dismissed Lydia Asiado's Petition for Review against Le Bon Eirres Pascua for failing to comply with requirements. Specifically, the Petition did not include necessary documents from the case record and did not indicate the IBP receipt number and MCLE Certificate of Compliance for Lydia Asiado's counsel. Dismissal was warranted according to Rules 42(2) and (3) of failing to include required documents and information to support the Petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    38 views3 pages

    Court of Appeals: Special Seventeenth Division

    Uploaded by

    Netweight
    The Court of Appeals dismissed Lydia Asiado's Petition for Review against Le Bon Eirres Pascua for failing to comply with requirements. Specifically, the Petition did not include necessary documents from the case record and did not indicate the IBP receipt number and MCLE Certificate of Compliance for Lydia Asiado's counsel. Dismissal was warranted according to Rules 42(2) and (3) of failing to include required documents and information to support the Petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    Court of Appeals
    Manila

    SPECIAL SEVENTEENTH DIVISION

    LYDIA ASIADO, CA-G.R. SP NO. 168041


    Petitioner,
    Members:

    ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, N.G.
    - versus - Chairperson,
    P AYOYO-VILLORDON, T.M.B., and
    *
    QUIMPO-SALE, A.M.W., JJ.

    Promulgated:
    LE BON EIRRES PASCUA, 26 February 2021
    Respondent. ______________________
    x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

    RESOLUTION
    ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:

    The Court DISMISSES the Petition for Review (Under Rule 42), 1
    because it contains the following infirmities:

    (1) the Petition does not include copies of the pleadings,


    documents, and material portions of the case records, essential to the
    resolution of the case (i.e.: Complaint in Civil Case No. 2297-17
    [including all annexes]; Answer in Civil Case No. 2297-17 [including
    all annexes]; Plaintiff's Position Paper in Civil Case No. 2297-17
    [including all annexes], in violation of Rule 42, Sections 2 2 and 3,3
    *
    Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 66-21-RSF dated 22 February 2021.
    1
    C.A. Rollo, p. 3.
    2
    SECTION 2. Form and contents. - The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original
    copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the
    parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or
    respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely
    a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both,
    allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and other reasons or arguments relied upon for the
    allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the
    judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial
    Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the
    record as would support the allegations of the petition. xxx.
    3
    SECTION 3. 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
    CA-G.R. SP NO. 168041 page 2 of 3
    RESOLUTION

    Rules of Court;

    (2) the Petition does not indicate the current date of issuance of the
    Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) official receipt number of
    the petitioner's counsel, in violation of Bar Matter Number 287 dated
    26 September 2000, as amended by Supreme Court En Banc
    Resolution dated 14 January 2014;4

    (3) the Petition does not indicate the current date of issuance of the
    Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (“MCLE”) Certificate of
    Compliance of the petitioner's counsel, in violation of Bar Matter
    Number 1922 dated 3 June 2008.5

    SO ORDERED.

    Original Signed
    NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
    Associate Justice

    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.
    4
    (a) AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the phrase "Failure to disclose the required
    information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records"
    and replacing it with "Failure to disclose the required information would subject, the counsel to appropriate
    penalty and disciplinary action"; and
    (b) PRESCRIBE the following rules for non-disclosure of current MCLE compliance/exemption number in
    the pleadings:
    (i) The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of ₱2,000.00 for the first offense, ₱3,000.00 for the second offense
    and ₱4,000.00 for the third offense;
    (ii) In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent member of the Bar pursuant to Section 2,
    Rule 13 of Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules and regulations; and
    (iii) The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the client/s shall be allowed to secure
    the services of a new counsel with the concomitant right to demand the return of fees already paid to the
    non-compliant lawyer.
    5
    Bar Matter No. 1922. – Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
    Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
    Certificate of Exemption. – The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate
    Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters,
    informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement
    program.

    The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education and Bar
    Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts
    or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
    Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure
    to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
    pleadings from the records.
    CA-G.R. SP NO. 168041 page 3 of 3
    RESOLUTION

    WE CONCUR:

    Original Signed
    TITA MARILYN B. PAYOYO-VILLORDON
    Associate Justice

    Original Signed
    ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE
    Associate Justice

    You might also like