THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES VICENTE MORANA & EUSEBIA MARCELLANA, NAMELY, AMONG OTHERS: ANA MARIE MAGDAONG-NAVARRO AND ALLAN M. MORANO, PETITIONERS, VS. RODOLFO MARCHAN, JOVEN MARCHAN, …
LANTION, J.A.C., J.:
Upon perusal of the instant Petition, however, this Court noted several infirmities, viz: (a) the payment for mediation fees is short of P330.00;[1] (b) the notary public in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping failed to indicate the office address/place of commission;[2] and (c) the addresses of the parties were not indicated.
A party who fails to observe very elementary rules of procedure which are mandatory causes his own predicament. To exculpate him from the coverage of such rules is to undermine the stability of the judicial process, as the bench and bar will be confounded by such irritating uncertainties as when to obey and when to ignore the rules.[3]
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Veloso, V.S.E., (Chairperson) and Antonio-Valenzuela, N.G., JJ., concur.
[1] Rule 42. Petition for Review from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals
Sec. 1. A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees xxx.”
[2] In violation of Sec. 2(b) and (c), Rule VII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
[3] Tan v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 755