Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rule 64
Rule 64
COMELEC
UDK-14858
DATE: April 2, 2013
In accordance with Rule 64 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing review of judgments
and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the
requirements specified therein shall be entertained.
On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-compliance therewith, particularly for —
(a) failure to completely state the material dates to show that the petition was filed on time pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64 in relation to Section 3
(2nd par.), Rule 46;
(b) non-submission of proof of service (e.g., a written admission of the party served/an affidavit of the party serving/registry receipts) of the
petition on the Commission on Elections as required by Section 5, Rule 64 and Section 13, Rule 13;
(c) failure to pay docket and other fees in violation of Section 5 (4th par.), Rule 64 and Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56; and
(d) insufficiency of the petition in form as it lacks verification and certification against forum-shopping as required by Section 5, Rule 64 in relation
to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7.
In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the
COMELEC in rendering the challenged resolution which, on the contrary, appears to be in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.
RULING:
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 19, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205296 (Arnold Adraneda and Dr. Priscilla Ampuan vs. Commission on Elections and Ating Guro). — In accordance with Rule 64 and other
related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission
on Elections, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the
basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-compliance therewith, particularly for —
(a) failure to accompany the petition with a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed resolution in violation of
Section 5, Rule 64; and
(b) failure to state material dates showing when notice of resolution subject of the petition was received, when a motion for
reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received, to show that the petition was filed on time
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64 in relation to Section 3 (2nd par.), Rule 46." (adv2) TDcAaHVery ||| (Adraneda v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
205296, February 19, 2013)
Palgan v. COMELEC
RULING:
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated MARCH 20, 2012, which reads as follows:
The Court Resolved to:
(a) GRANT the Motion dated February 24, 2012 filed by counsel for petitioner for an extension of thirty (30) days from February 24, 2012, or until
March 25, 2012, within which to file a petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court (not a petition for review on certiorari); and
(b)REQUIRE the petitioner to COMPLY with the following procedural requirements within five (5) days from notice hereof:
(i)requirement to state material dates showing when notice of judgment, final order or resolution subject of the petition was received, when a
motion for reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received, to show that the motion for extension was filed
on time pursuant to Section 5 (3rd par.), Rule 64 in relation to Section 3 (2nd par.), Rule 46, Rules of Court;
(ii)requirement to pay deposit for sheriff's fee and legal research fee pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 (4th par.), Rule 64, Rules of Court; and
(iii)requirement to file pleadings and motions in eighteen (18) legible copies pursuant to Section 5 (1st par.), Rule 64 and Section 2, Rule 56, Rules of
Court."
Alliance for Reform Towards Effective Management and Sustainable Development, Inc. v. COMELEC
March 5, 2013
Petitioner: Alliance for Reform Towards Effective Management and Sustainable Development, Inc.
Ruling:
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated MARCH 5, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205736 (Alliance for Reform Towards Effective Management and Sustainable Development, Inc. [ARMD] vs. Commission on Elections). — In
accordance with Rule 64 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing review of judgments and final
orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements
specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-compliance
therewith, particularly for —
(a)failure to accompany the petition with a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed
judgment in violation of Section 5, Rule 64; and
(b)insufficiency of the petition in form as the verification is defective because of lack of proof of authority to sign the
same for and in behalf of the petitioner."
YNARES vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
None. Automatic Dismissal
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court should accept the case.
HELD:
No. In accordance with Rule 64, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be
entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-compliance therewith, particularly for —
(a)failure to state all the material dates to show that the petition was filed on (b)insufficient or defective verification and certification on non-forum
shopping, as the affiant thereof was not personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and
(c)failure to attach 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 the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.
In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for being the wrong remedy and for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the Commission on Elections.
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 209593. November 19, 2013.]
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated NOVEMBER 19, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 209593 (Casimiro A. Ynares III vs. Commission on Elections and Danilo O. Leyble). — In accordance with Rule 64 and other related
provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as well as circulars, directives or orders of the Supreme Court, governing review of
judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the
requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-
compliance therewith, particularly for — (a)failure to state all the material dates to show that the petition was filed on time pursuant to Section 5, Rule
64 in relation to Section 3 (2nd par.), Rule 46, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; (b)insufficient or defective verification and certification on
non-forum shopping, as the affiant thereof was not personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and (c)failure to attach 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, as required in the
Guidelines on Submission and Processing of Soft Copies of Supreme Court-bound Papers Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.
In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for being the wrong remedy and for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of
discretion was committed by the Commission on Elections in rendering the challenged orders which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the
facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.
The Court Resolved to NOTE the Manifestation dated October 29, 2013 filed by counsel for petitioner, stating that he was constrained to file
the petition by registered mail on October 25, 2013." (adv66)
NILO T. PATES vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EMELITA B. that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that
ALMIRANTE every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed
procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
G.R. No. 184915 June 30, 2009 There have been some
Ponente: Justice Brion instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of
the rules, but this flexibility was "never intended to forge a bastion for
FACTS: erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity." A liberal
interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be
On February 1, 2008 – COMELEC Division issued its resolution resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and
On February 4, 2008 – Counsel of Petitioner received a copy of Feb. 1, circumstances.
2008 resolution
On February 8, 2008 – Petitioner filed his MR
On September 18, 2008 – COMELEC enbanc issued a resolution
denying the MR
On September 22, 2008 – Petitioner received a copy of the Sept. 18,
2008 resolution
On October 22, 2008 – Petitioner filed this petition
On November 11, 2008 – Dismissal Resolution
ISSUE:
Whether the petition for review of the resolution of the COMELEC has
been filed on time.
HELD:
No. The SC ruled that the last day for the filing of a petition for
certiorari, i.e., 30 days from notice of the final COMELEC Resolution,
fell on a Saturday (October 18, 2008), as the petitioner only had the
remaining period of 26 days to file his petition, after using up 4 days in
preparing and filing his Motion for Reconsideration. Effectively, the
last day for filing was October 20, 2008 – the following Monday or the
first working day after October 18, 2008. The petitioner filed his
petition with us on October 22, 2008 or two days late; hence, our
Resolution of dismissal of November 11, 2008.
Procedural rules, we must stress, should be treated with utmost
respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in
the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. The
requirement is in pursuance to the bill of rights inscribed in the
Constitution which guarantees that "all persons shall have a right to
the speedy disposition of their before all judicial, quasi-judicial and
administrative bodies," the adjudicatory bodies and the parties to a
case are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While it is true
LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. and TERESITA F. PLANAS, Petitioners, provides for the allowable period within which to file petitions for
vs. certiorari from judgments of both the COMELEC and the Commission
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), CITIZENS’ BATTLE AGAINST on Audit. Thus, while Rule 64 refers to the same remedy of certiorari
CORRUPTION PARTY LIST represented by VIRGINIA S. JOSE SHERWIN as the general rule in Rule 65, they cannot be equated, as they
N. TUGNA, and CINCHONA CRUZ-GONZALES, Respondents, provide for different reglementary periods. Rule 65 provides for a
period of 60 days from notice of judgment sought to be assailed in the
G.R. No. 193808 June 26, 2012 Supreme Court, while Section 3 expressly provides for only 30 days,
viz:
FACTS:
SEC. 3. Time to file petition.—The petition shall be filed within thirty
(30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
On 19 January 2010, respondents, led by President and Chairperson sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or
Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, submitted the Certificate of reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if
Nomination of CIBAC to the COMELEC Law Department. The allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned,
nomination was certified by Villanueva and Virginia S. Jose. On 26 shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the
March 2010, Pia Derla submitted a second Certificate of aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but
Nomination, which included petitioners Luis Lokin, Jr. and Teresita which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from
Planas as party-list nominees. Derla affixed to the certification her notice of denial.
signature as "acting secretary-general" of CIBAC.
In the Resolution dated 5 July 2010, the COMELEC First Division In this case, petitioners do not even attempt to explain why the
granted the Petition, ordered the Certificate filed by Derla to be Petition was filed out of time. Clearly, they are aware of the applicable
expunged from the records, and declared respondents’ faction as the period for filing, as they themselves invoke the remedy under Rule 64
true nominees of CIBAC. Upon Motion for Reconsideration separately in conjunction with Rule 65. Hence, there is no acceptable reason for
filed by the adverse parties, the COMELEC en banc affirmed the their failure to comply with the proper procedure. But even if this
Division’s findings. In a per curiam Resolution dated 31 August Court were to apply liberality and take cognizance of the late Petition,
2010, the Commission reiterated that Pia Derla was unable to prove the arguments therein are flawed. The COMELEC has jurisdiction over
her authority to file the said Certificate, whereas respondents cases pertaining to party leadership and the nomination of party-list
presented overwhelming evidence that Villanueva deputized CIBAC representatives.
Secretary General Virginia Jose to submit the Certificate of
Nomination pursuant to CIBAC’s Constitution and bylaws.
HELD:
NO. This Court denies the petition for being filed outside the requisite
period. The review by this Court of judgments and final orders of the
COMELEC is governed specifically by Rule 64 of the Rules of Court,
which states:
XXX