Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Escoto v. Domasig, G.R. No. 215214 (Notice), June 17, 2015

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Taniñas
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal that sought to reverse the Court of Appeals' (CA) resolution dismissing his petition for failing to comply with procedural requirements. The CA dismissed the petition for failing to comply with the form and content requirements for a petition for review of a quasi-judicial agency's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, stating that strict compliance with procedural rules is required and that the petitioner committed several procedural lapses in filing the petition for review and motion for extension of time.

    Copyright:

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

    Escoto v. Domasig, G.R. No. 215214 (Notice), June 17, 2015

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Taniñas
    94 views1 page
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal that sought to reverse the Court of Appeals' (CA) resolution dismissing his petition for failing to comply with procedural requirements. The CA dismissed the petition for failing to comply with the form and content requirements for a petition for review of a quasi-judicial agency's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, stating that strict compliance with procedural rules is required and that the petitioner committed several procedural lapses in filing the petition for review and motion for extension of time.

    Original Description:

    Legal Forms digest

    Original Title

    Escoto v Damasig

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal that sought to reverse the Court of Appeals' (CA) resolution dismissing his petition for failing to comply with procedural requirements. The CA dismissed the petition for failing to comply with the form and content requirements for a petition for review of a quasi-judicial agency's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, stating that strict compliance with procedural rules is required and that the petitioner committed several procedural lapses in filing the petition for review and motion for extension of time.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    94 views1 page

    Escoto v. Domasig, G.R. No. 215214 (Notice), June 17, 2015

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Taniñas
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal that sought to reverse the Court of Appeals' (CA) resolution dismissing his petition for failing to comply with procedural requirements. The CA dismissed the petition for failing to comply with the form and content requirements for a petition for review of a quasi-judicial agency's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, stating that strict compliance with procedural rules is required and that the petitioner committed several procedural lapses in filing the petition for review and motion for extension of time.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Escoto v. Domasig, G.R. No.

    215214 (Notice), June 17, 2015

    This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse the Resolutions of the Court of
    Appeals (CA) which denied petitioner's appeal for failing to comply with procedural requirements.

    Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the CA to assail the Judgment of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
    (DARAB). Under the Rules, however, a party appealing an adverse ruling of the DARAB to the CA must file a petition for
    review. In the interest of justice, the CA treated the Notice of Appeal as a petition for review. Nonetheless, it dismissed the
    Petition for being non-compliant with the requirements as to the manner of filing and the contents thereof pursuant to Rule 43
    (Petition for Review from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA).

    The CA pointed out that aside from the complete payment of docket and other lawful fees and the statement of material dates,
    petitioner failed to comply with the other requirements set forth under the Sections of Rule 43 above-cited. Petitioner filed a
    Motion for Reconsideration, but failed to cure the defects of his Petition, prompting the CA to also dismiss it for lack of merit.

    Ruling:

    The dismissal is proper.

    The Rules of Court are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of cases. Generally, strict compliance with the Rules is
    enjoined to meet this objective. In not a few instances, however, the Court has relaxed the rigid application of the Rules so that
    justice may be better served. 12 Petitioner invokes this liberality in assailing the ruling of the CA. We cannot countenance
    petitioner's procedural lapses in his Petition to the CA. It is a fundamental error on his part to file a petition that does not comply
    with the essential form and content requirements. Without this compliance, the CA would not be able to determine the merit of
    his Petition and decide on it with reason. No excuse or exemption can save the Petition from being dismissed outright due to
    serious procedural errors.

    We also take note that petitioner also committed the following procedural lapses in filing this instant Petition that further justify
    its dismissal: 13 (1) The Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition lacks affidavit of service. (2) The assailed CA Resolutions
    submitted with the Petition are machine copies only. (3) There is no explanation as to why the service of the Motion of Extension
    and Petition for Review sent to the CA and to the adverse party was not done personally.

    You might also like