This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners contend that the CA should not have taken cognizance of the Petition before it, as their actual addresses were not indicated therein as required under Section 3, Rule 46[12] of the Rules of Court, and pursuant to Cendaña v. Avila.[13] In the 2008 case Cendaña, this Court ruled that the requirement that a petition for certiorari must contain the actual addresses of all the petitioners and the respondents is mandatory. The failure to comply with that requirement is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of a petition. | |||||