ALEX O. LEYSON, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND CORRUPTION PREVENTION OFFICE – OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS) AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN – CENTRAL OFFICE, DILIMAN, QUE…

This is a Petition for Review^[1] under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court on the Decision dated September 15, 2011 of the Office of the Ombudsman – Visayas and the Joint Order dated March 17, 2014 of the Office of the Ombudsman – Central Office, Diliman, Quezon City.

A perusal of the instant Petition reveals the following infirmities, to wit:

1. It does not allege the date of receipt of the Decision of the Ombudsman-Visayas, and the date the motion for reconsideration of the said Decision was filed, in violation of Rule 43, Section 6 of the Rules of Court;

2. It does not contain an explanation why the preferred personal mode of service was not availed of, in violation of Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court;

3. It does not contain proof of service of the petition upon the adverse parties (i.e., an Affidavit of Service), in violation of Rule 13, Section 13 of the Rules of Court;

4. No other pleadings and/or documents which are necessary for a better understanding and resolution of the instant petition, except for a copy of the assailed Decision, petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Resolution denying the same, were attached; and

5. Its Verification and Certification of Non-forum Shopping:

a. failed to state that the allegations in the petition are “based on authentic records,” in violation of Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, May 1, 2000);

b. no competent evidence as to the identity of the petitioner (at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the petitioner) in violation of Rule II, Section 12 on Rules of Notarial Practice; and

c. does not indicate the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, and the office address of the notary public, in violation of Rule VIII, Section 2(c), of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

WHEREFORE, in view of the aforementioned infirmities and pursuant to Rule 43, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, the instant Petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Ingles,^* and Azcarraga-Jacob, JJ., concur.

---

^* Acting Chairperson in lieu of J. Ramon Paul L. Hernando, per Office Order No. 19-14-GTI dated July 7, 2014.

^[1] Rollo, pages 3-10.