SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243798. February 18, 2019.]
ALLAN D. BANTILO, petitioner, vs.REGALADO TOLINERO, REP. BY RENATO TOLINERO, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF KALIBO, AKLAN, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243798 — Allan D. Bantilo versus Regalado Tolinero, rep. by Renato Tolinero, Register of Deeds of Kalibo, Aklan, et al.
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the assailed Resolutions dated December 14, 2017 1 and December 13, 2018 2 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 11350, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for failure of petitioner Allan D. Bantilo (petitioner Bantilo) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error that warrants the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Foremost, the instant Petition deserves outright dismissal for failure of petitioner Bantilo to serve a copy of the instant Petition to the CA, as well as to attach any proof of such service with the instant Petition. Section 3, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court unequivocally states that proof of service of a copy of the petition on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition. In accordance with Section 5, Rule 45, such failure is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the instant Petition.
Even if the aforesaid procedural rule is waived for the sake of liberality, the instant Petition nonetheless merits dismissal for being grossly unmeritorious.
As admitted by petitioner Bantilo himself, he failed to interpose any motion for reconsideration or appeal of the Order 3 dated July 31, 2017 of the RTC 4 dismissing his Complaint. Aside from providing a lame, self-serving, and unsupported excuse that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration and appeal was caused by his counsel's inadvertence, no serious and compelling reason was offered by petitioner Bantilo to explain his failure to file a motion for reconsideration and an appeal of the RTC's Order dated July 31, 2017.
As held time and time again by the Court, it is elementary that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy was available. A special civil action under Rule 65 cannot cure a party's failure to timely appeal the assailed decision or resolution. Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal. 5 CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-21. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Louis P. Acosta concurring.
2.Id. at 12-15. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Louis P. Acosta concurring.
3.Id. at 177. Penned by Presiding Montalid P. Patnubay, Jr.
4. Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 9 in Civil Case No. 10590.
5.Santos v. Orda, Jr., 634 Phil. 452, 460 (2010).