YSTILO SALON CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COMMISSIONERS JOSEPH GERARD E. MABILOG, ISABEL G. PANGANIBAN-ORTIGUERRA AND NIEVES E. VIVAR-DE CASTRO IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS COMMI…
CRUZ, R.A., J.:
On September 5, 2013, We denied petitioner’s prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and issued a Resolution requiring the private respondent to file a Comment within ten (10) days from notice.
On December 5, 2013, We required petitioner to furnish Us within five (5) days from notice the current address of the private respondent considering that the copy of the September 5, 2013 Resolution sent to her was returned to Us unclaimed with postal notation that private respondent has “moved out” of the given address.
On April 10, 2014, Our Judicial Records Division reported that petitioner has not filed a Compliance to Our December 5, 2013 Resolution.
The actual address of the respondent is one of the requirements in the filing of the petition under Sec. 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. The same rule provides that “(t)he failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.”
For failing to comply with Our order to provide the current address of the private respondent pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, We DISMISS this petition.
SO ORDERED.
Abdulwahid, H.S., Chairperson and Barza, R.F., JJ., concur.