FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241977. December 3, 2018.]
JULIUS LUIS G. CAMPOS, petitioner, vs.KATHERINE CAMUA-CAMPOS AND COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 3, 2018which read as follows:
"G.R. No. 241977 — Julius Luis G. Campos, Petitioner, v. Katherine Camua-Campos and Court of Appeals, Respondents.
Petitioner's Ex-Parte Motion 1 for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of fifteen (15) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his Petition 2 for Certiorari is GRANTED.
This notwithstanding, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for (1) technical defects, and (2) being a wrong mode of appeal.
The petition is right away dismissible for its procedural infirmities. Foremost of these is petitioner's nonpayment of legal fees in violation of Sections 3 3 and 5 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner failed to pay docket and other legal fees, the amount paid being only P4,530.00 which lacked P300.00 for deposit for Sheriff's fee.
In addition, petitioner's counsel failed to indicate the date of issue of his MCLE Certificate of Compliance in violation of Bar Matter No. 1922 5 issued on June 3, 2008.
Also, the petition is clearly used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court when the proper remedy from a judgment or final order of the Court of Appeals (CA) is appeal via petition for review under Rule 45 of the same Rules. The July 31, 2018 Resolution of the CA which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was received by petitioner's counsel on August 8, 2018. 6 Instead of filing a petition for review with this Court within 15 days from August 8, 2018, or until August 23, 2018, petitioner filed his motion for extension on October 7, 2018 and ultimately his petition for certiorari on October 22, 2018. By those dates, petitioner had already lost the remedy of appeal. Consequently, the assailed CA dispositions have become final and executory. CAIHTE
Even if these procedural flaws be disregarded, the petition is still substantially flawed. No grave abuse of discretion attended the rendition of the assailed CA decision and resolution declaring petitioner's marriage with private respondent valid and subsisting. The CA correctly reversed the ruling of the trial court because petitioner had indeed failed to show evidence of the gravity, incurability, and root cause of private respondent's condition. 7
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
2.Id. at 8-17.
3. Section 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of petition. — Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition. Proof of service of a copy, thereof on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition.
4. Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
5. The pertinent part of the resolution, as amended by the January 14, 2014 Resolution, states:
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action.
6.Rollo, pp. 121-122 (In a certified true copy of the Compliance dated August 10, 2018 submitted by petitioner before the CA, petitioner's counsel manifested that he received a copy of the July 31, 2018 Resolution of the CA on August 8, 2018).
7.Ligeralde v. Patalinghug, 632 Phil. 326, 331 (2010) states:
Psychological incapacity required by Art. 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.