Scribd
Upload
135 views3 pages

Legal Resolution Dismissal Notice

The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Review filed by Urs Peter Schlosser and Riza Lambatin Schlosser. In its 3 sentence summary: 1) The petitioners failed to comply with requirements to indicate dates and attach necessary documents showing their petition was timely filed and supported by the record. 2) Specifically, they did not show the date of receipt of the assailed decision or attach their motion for reconsideration and related criminal case documents. 3) As such, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to comply with requirements of the Rules of Court regarding the documents required to accompany a petition for review.

Uploaded by

Brian del Mundo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
135 views3 pages

Legal Resolution Dismissal Notice

The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Review filed by Urs Peter Schlosser and Riza Lambatin Schlosser. In its 3 sentence summary: 1) The petitioners failed to comply with requirements to indicate dates and attach necessary documents showing their petition was timely filed and supported by the record. 2) Specifically, they did not show the date of receipt of the assailed decision or attach their motion for reconsideration and related criminal case documents. 3) As such, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to comply with requirements of the Rules of Court regarding the documents required to accompany a petition for review.

Uploaded by

Brian del Mundo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Cebu City

SPECIAL TWENTIETH DIVISION

URS PETER SCHLOSSER AND CA-G.R. SP NO. 14269


RIZA LAMBATIN SCHLOSSER,
Petitioners, Members:

LAGURA-YAP, J., Chairperson,


QUIROZ &
– versus - ,♠
CORPIN, JR., JJ.

HARIS N. NANDWANI Promulgated: 27 April 2021


Respondent.

RESOLUTION

LAGURA-YAP, J.:

This is a Petition for Review with Injunction and/or


Temporary Restraining Order wherein petitioners pray that
the Decision of the RTC dated 27 July 2020 and 27 February
2020 be reversed and set aside and that a TRO be issued
enjoining the execution of the questioned Decision.

However, We note that what must have been the Decision


dated 27 July 2020 referred to in the prayer is actually a
Resolution1 promulgated on March 2021 denying the Motion
for Reconsideration of petitioners herein dated 27 July 2020.

Upon examination of the Petition and its annexes, We


note the following infirmities:

1. Petitioners failed to indicate the date of receipt of


the assailed 27 February 2020 Decision. Such
failure does not comply with the requirement under
Section 2(b) of Rule 42 that the petition shall
,♠
Per Office Order No. 15-21 GTI dated April 15, 2021.
1
Petition, p. 1; Rollo, p. 5.
CA-G.R. SP No. 14269 Page 2 of 3
Resolution

indicate the specific material dates showing that it


was filed on time;

2. Petitioners failed to attach to the petition:

a. Motion for Reconsideration of the 27


February 2020 Decision; and

b. Information for Violation of Batas Pambansa


Bilang 22 in Criminal Case Nos. 16-08-29077
to 79 and 16-09-29331 to 41 filed by the
People of the Philippines against petitioners
before the City Prosecutor's Office, Bacolod
City, Negros Occidental.

The failure to attach such documents does not comply


with Section 2(d) of the said Rule that requires that the
Petition shall be accompanied by duplicate originals or true
copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts xxx
and of the pleadings or other material portions of the record as
would support the allegations of the petition.

We apply Section 3 of Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of


Court. The failure of petitioner to comply with the
requirements regarding the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be a sufficient ground for
dismissal.

WHEREFORE, for failure to comply with Section 2(b) and


(d) of Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court, the instant
Petition for Review is DISMISSED pursuant to Section 3 of the
said Rule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARILYN B. LAGURA-YAP
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. SP No. 14269 Page 3 of 3
Resolution

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORIGINAL SIGNED
BAUTISTA G. CORPIN, JR.
ROBERTO P. QUIROZ
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

You might also like