FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245901. June 3, 2019.]
BLOOMBERRY RESORTS AND HOTELS, INC. (SOLAIRE RESORT & CASINO), petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SPECIAL 17TH DIVISION) AND ROWENA A. DE GUZMAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 3, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245901 — Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. (Solaire Resort & Casino), petitioner, v. Court of Appeals (Former Special 17th Division) and Rowena A. De Guzman, respondents.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Certiorari and notes that the same suffers from several infirmities, to wit: (1) failure to pay P300.00 as docket fee for petitioner's prayer for a temporary restraining order, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court (Rules) in relation to Section 2, Rule 56 of the said Rules; (2) failure to pay P1,000.00 for Sheriff's Trust Fund, per A.M. No. 17-12-09-SC; (3) failure to state when petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was filed pursuant to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules in relation to Paragraph 2, Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules; (4) failure to accompany the petition with clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Decision dated December 29, 2016 and Resolution dated January 31, 2017; (5) timeliness of the petition for certiorari and payment of docket and legal fees cannot be determined, since the date of posting the petition and payment was not indicated in the registry stamp; and (6) being an improper remedy.
This Court finds the dismissal of the instant petition proper as the same was filed in an attempt to remedy petitioner's lost appeal — the reglementary period for filing an appeal by certiorari having already expired on January 23, 2019. As this Court held in People v. Court of Appeals, 1 "[t]he well-settled rule, buttressed and strengthened by a long line of cases, is that certiorari will not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal." 2 CAIHTE
Petitioner likewise imputed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in affirming the NLRC's factual findings because "the NLRC failed to understand the dynamics of the card game and that violations of the procedures therein involved can actually be the exact means and methods by which the players and the dealers execute their schemes to cheat." 3 However, petitioner failed to attach the NLRC decision and resolution to enable this Court to determine the veracity of its claims.
In any case, a perusal of the CA's Decision would show that it correctly refused to take judicial notice of petitioner's claim that card peeking is a card game violation and is the method by which players and dealers cheat. The appellate court properly explained:
x x x The court may only take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or which are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Questions of fact must be resolved on the basis of evidence presented by the party in accord with the company rules violated. Petitioner, however, did not explain or demonstrate how card peeking in a particular card game can be regarded as cheating as defined under its rules. x x x 4 (citations omitted)
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for certiorari.
SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 276 Phil. 585 (1991).
2.Id. at 594. Citations omitted.
3.Rollo, p. 13.
4.Rollo, p. 37.