THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236449. June 17, 2019.]
BENEDICTO V. CATABAY, petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, REP. BY THE HON. CARMELITA SALANDANAN MANAHAN, HON. JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO, HON. FRANCHITO N. DIAMANTE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55 OF ALAMINOS, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF ALAMINOS, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF DAGUPAN, THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSORS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OF BANI, BOLINAO AND SUAL (ALL IN PANGASINAN), AND RONNIE ALBERT C. CATABAY AND MARK ANTHONY C. CATABAY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 17, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236449 (Benedicto V. Catabay vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, rep. by the Hon. Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, Hon. Japar B. Dimaampao, Hon. Franchito N. Diamante, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55 of Alaminos, The Register of Deeds for the City of Alaminos, The Register of Deeds for the City of Dagupan, The Municipal Assessors of the Municipalities of Bani, Bolinao and Sual (all in Pangasinan), and Ronnie Albert C. Catabay and Mark Anthony C. Catabay). — Benedicto V. Catabay (petitioner) assails in this Petition for Certiorari1 the Decision 2 dated June 30, 2017 and Resolution 3 dated October 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145897 which denied his petition for annulment of judgment. HTcADC
After a judicious review of the allegations, arguments, and issues in the petition for certiorari, the Court resolves to DISMISS the same for being a wrong mode of appeal. Contrary to the petitioner's assertion that there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, 4 he had the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the CA by filing a petition for review on certiorari with the Court within 15 days from receipt of notice of the CA decision. "The existence and availability of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for the latter remedy is the unavailability of appeal." 5
In any event, the petition failed to sufficiently show grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the CA in rendering its assailed Decision dated June 30, 2017 and Resolution dated October 27, 2017. Lastly, even if we treat the instant petition as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court, the same must still be denied for being filed out of time. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO,J., on official business)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-30.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Franchito N. Diamante concurring; id. at 37-43.
3.Id. at 46-49.
4.Id. at 6.
5.Cuevas v. Atty. Macatangay, et al., 806 Phil. 325, 336 (2017).