The Court of Appeals (CA) threw out an appeal by Dauis Mayor Miriam Sumaylo who is facing dismissal from office, citing several procedural violations that rendered her petition worthless before judges could even examine its merits.
Mayor Sumaylo filed the emergency petition Aug. 11, 2025 seeking to block her removal from office after the Ombudsman found her guilty of gross neglect of duty.
But the three-judge panel never got past the paperwork.
The court’s blistering resolution, released this week, catalogued a series of basic legal mistakes that doomed Sumaylo’s case from the start.
The errors ranged from improper notarization to missing crucial documents.
“The instant petition suffers from a number of infirmities which merits its dismissal,” wrote Associate Justice Marilyn Lagura-Yap for the unanimous panel.
The most damaging flaw involved Sumaylo’s sworn statement, known legally as a verification.
Under revised court rules implemented in 2019, such statements must include specific attestations that the allegations are true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic documents; that the pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and that the factual allegations have evidentiary support.
Sumaylo’s filing contained none of these required promises.
The court applied the established rule: treat defective verifications as if the petition was never signed at all.
“An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect,” the CA noted.
Even the notarization went sideways.
The notary public left blank the section identifying what type of identification Sumaylo presented — a basic requirement when the notary doesn’t personally know the person signing.
“The proof of identity was left blank,” the CA observed, making the notarization legally deficient.
Perhaps most tellingly, Sumaylo’s legal counsel failed to attach key documents that courts require in such cases.
Missing were the original complaint against her, her counter-affidavit, and position papers from both sides — essentially the entire paper trail of her Ombudsman case.
The procedural failures meant the court never addressed whether the Ombudsman properly found Sumaylo guilty of issuing a business permit to a cockpit arena that lacked proper franchise authority.
That underlying case, brought by former municipal employee Antonio Sumobay, alleged Sumaylo allowed the cockpit to operate for over a year after its franchise expired in June 2021.
The Ombudsman ordered her permanent removal from office with loss of all benefits.
Sumaylo’s attorney, Atty. Lord “Popot” Marapao IV, had announced plans for a multi-front legal challenge when the Ombudsman decision first emerged. However, Sumaylo engaged another lawyer for her petition before the CA.
The dismissal eliminated Sumaylo’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or injunction, which would have kept her in office during the appeals process, unless the CA reverses its decision.
With no TRO or preliminary injunction available, the original Ombudsman decision ordering her removal remains in effect.