HEIRS OF HIPOLITO GUIAO CORTEZ, NAMELY: RICARDO D. ZAPANTA, ARSENIA D. ZAPANTA, VICENTA Z. PAGLINAWAN, BELEN Z. CANLAS, MARCELA Z. MASICLAT, EFRAIN D. ZAPANTA, SR., FAUSTINO D. …

The present petition for certiorari assails the trial court’s (i) Order dated December 10, 2013^[1] which set the case for hearing on the special and affirmative defenses raised in respondents’ answer, and (ii) Order dated December 9, 2014^[2] which denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the Order dated December 10, 2013.

The petition is fatally defective for the following reasons:

(1) There is no allegation as to when petitioners received the assailed Order dated December 10, 2013 and when they filed a motion for reconsideration of said Order. Apropos is Hilario S. Ramirez vs Court of Appeals, et al.,^[3] wherein the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petition for certiorari for failure to state therein the material dates. Thus:

For the same reasons above, we also find no reversible error in the assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing Ramirez’s petition on the ground of failure to state material dates, because in filing a special civil action for certiorari without indicating the requisite material date therein, Ramirez violated basic tenets of remedial law, particularly Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, x x x

x x x. There are three material dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65. First, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; second, the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and third, the date when notice of the denial thereof was received. In the case before us, the petition filed with the Court of Appeals failed to indicate when the notice of the NLRC Resolution was received and when the Motion for Reconsideration was filed, in violation of Rule 65, Section 1 (2nd par.) and Rule 46, Section 3 (2nd par.). (Underlining supplied)

(2) The “Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping,” signed by Elizabeth Zapanta only, the alleged representative of the other petitioners, is defective for lack of competent evidence of her identity and also for lack of showing of her authority to act for and in behalf of the other petitioners.

(3) There is no affidavit of service of the petition upon respondents.^[4]

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed outright.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, S.C., and Hernando, R.P.L., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] pp. 17-18, Rollo

^[2] p. 19, Rollo

^[3] 607 SCRA 752 (2009)

^[4] Section 13, Rule 13, Ibid.