NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. THE MUNICIPALITY OF LIBMANAN, AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH FIVE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, R…

Petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the National
Waterworks and Sewerage Authority against the Presiding Judge, Branch V, Court
of First Instance of Camarines Sur,
and the municipality of Libmanan, praying that:

“x x x    x x x, premises considered and,
pending resolution by this Honorable Tribunal of petitioner’s petition, it is
respectfully prayed that respondent Court be enjoined from executing its
Decision in Civil Case L-161 and after due hearing hereon, it is further prayed
that this Honorable Tribunal issue a Writ of Certiorari commanding respondent court to approve the original Record on
Appeal and/or amended Record on Appeal, it appearing that the former was
perfected within the reglamentary period and/or that
the latter while late, the causes of the delay thereof were beyond petitioner’s
control.

“Further, herein petitioner respectfully prays for such relief
and other remedies that this Honorable Tribunal may deem just and equitable in
the premises.”

While paragraph 3 of the petition speaks of the
complaint filed by the respondent municipality with the respondent court for
recovery of property with damages (Civil Case No. L-161),
no copy thereof is attached to the petition.

Similarly, paragraph 4 of
the petition mentions the decision rendered by the respondent court on December
10, 1965, but no copy thereof is attached to the petition.

Again, paragraph 5 of the petition speaks of the order of default
entered by the respondent court and of the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner in the case above-mentioned, but no copy of the order of default is
attached to the petition.

Bearing in mind that the
petition under consideration, was filed for the
purpose of enjoining the respondent court from executing the decision rendered
in Civil Case No. L-161, the importance of the missing pleadings is obvious.

Moreover, the petition is also for the purpose of securing an
order commanding the respondent court to approve either the original or the
amended record on appeal filed by petitioner, but no copy of either is attached
to its petition.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
the petition under consideration is dismissed.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Castro, JJ., concur.