Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    Cendaña Vs Avila

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Taniñas
    1) Percival Cendaña filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging a Regional Trial Court order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Cirilo Avila in a quo warranto case. 2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failing to include the actual addresses of the parties and for not manifesting a willingness to post a bond. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal based on the failure to include addresses but found the failure to post a bond was not fatal, as it only related to the request for a restraining order and not the petition itself.

    Copyright:

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

    Cendaña Vs Avila

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Taniñas
    96 views1 page
    1) Percival Cendaña filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging a Regional Trial Court order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Cirilo Avila in a quo warranto case. 2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failing to include the actual addresses of the parties and for not manifesting a willingness to post a bond. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal based on the failure to include addresses but found the failure to post a bond was not fatal, as it only related to the request for a restraining order and not the petition itself.

    Original Description:

    Legal Forms digest

    Original Title

    Cendaña vs Avila

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Percival Cendaña filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging a Regional Trial Court order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Cirilo Avila in a quo warranto case. 2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failing to include the actual addresses of the parties and for not manifesting a willingness to post a bond. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal based on the failure to include addresses but found the failure to post a bond was not fatal, as it only related to the request for a restraining order and not the petition itself.

    Copyright:

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

    Cendaña Vs Avila

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Taniñas
    1) Percival Cendaña filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging a Regional Trial Court order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Cirilo Avila in a quo warranto case. 2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failing to include the actual addresses of the parties and for not manifesting a willingness to post a bond. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal based on the failure to include addresses but found the failure to post a bond was not fatal, as it only related to the request for a restraining order and not the petition itself.

    Copyright:

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

    1

    Cendaña v. Avila, G.R. No. 168350 (Resolution), January 31, 2008 restraining order, not in the dismissal of his petition for certiorari .The Court of Appeals'
    unqualified dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the ground that petitioner failed to
    In 2003, herein respondent, Cirilo A. Avila, joined the Land Transportation Office (LTO) as manifest willingness to post a bond is clearly inappropriate.
    Director II of its Law Enforcement Service. In 2005, petitioner Percival A. Cendaña was
    appointed to the same position by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The LTO immediately Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground
    issued an order directing Avila to formally turn over his post to Cendaña. Aggrieved, Avila that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the questioned RTC Order.
    filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition 2 for quo warranto with a prayer for the
    issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC granted the injunctive relief applied for.

    Cendaña filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of
    a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction. The appellate court
    dismissed the said petition. Undaunted, petitioner Cendaña then filed the instant Petition for
    Review on Certiorari anchored on the following grounds:

    That the CA erred in dismissing the petition based on

    (1) That petitioner did not state the actual addressed of the parties;

    (2) That petitioner did not manifest his willingness to post a bond in his prayer for
    TRO and WPI;

    (3) That petitioner did not file a MR before filing the petition for Certiorari.

    Petitioner contends there was no need to state his address in the petition for certiorari because
    notice to his counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General, is notice to him. Petitioner argues, his
    failure to manifest willingness to post a bond in his prayer for the issuance of a temporary
    restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction should not adversely affect the merits
    of his petition. Petitioner stresses, immediate recourse to the Court of Appeals through a
    petition for certiorari is justified because the questioned RTC Order is a patent nullity.
    Petitioner insists that the appellate court erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on a
    technicality instead of ruling on its merits.

    Ruling:

    Petition is without merit. Under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the
    Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari shall contain the actual addresses of all the petitioners
    and the respondents.

    The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be
    sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

    The requirement that a petition for certiorari must contain the actual addresses of all the
    petitioners and the respondents is mandatory.6 Petitioner's failure to comply with the said
    requirement is sufficient ground for the dismissal of his petition. Thus, the Court of Appeals
    correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the parties' actual addresses
    were not indicated therein.

    However, petitioner's failure to manifest willingness to post a bond, in his petition


    for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a
    temporary restraining order, is not a fatal defect. This omission would, at the most, only result
    in the denial of his application for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a temporary

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy