FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238474. July 11, 2018.]
CERAMIC TILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner,vs. HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, AS THE FORMER SECRETARY OF, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA, AS FORMER SECRETARY OF, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, HON. GREGORY L. DOMINGO, AS FORMER SECRETARY OF, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, HON. PROCESO J. ALCALA, AS FORMER SECRETARY OF, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HON. ROSALIA V. DE LEON, AS FORMER TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE BUREAU OF TREASURY, HON. ALBERTO D. LINA, AS FORMER COMMISSIONER OF, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND HON. EDGARDO B. ABON, AS FORMER CHAIRMAN OF, AND THE TARIFF COMMISSION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 11, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 238474 — Ceramic Tile Manufacturers Association, Inc. vs. Hon. Florencio B. Abad, as the former Secretary of, and the Department of Budget and Management, Hon. Cesar V. Purisima, as former Secretary of, and the Department of Finance, Hon. Gregory L. Domingo, as former Secretary of, and the Department of Trade and Industry, Hon. Proceso J. Alcala, as former Secretary of, and the Department of Agriculture, Hon. Rosalia V. De Leon, as former Treasurer of the Philippines, and the Bureau of Treasury, Hon. Alberto D. Lina, as former Commissioner of, and the Bureau of Customs, and Hon. Edgardo B. Abon, as former Chairman of, and the Tariff Commission
The Motion for Extension of Time filed by the petitioner seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period on April 26, 2018 within which to file its Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure to show that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143279 committed any reversible error. The appellate court has exhaustively discussed the reasons why mandamus cannot be availed of in the case at bench. Where administrative remedies are available, a petition for mandamus does not lie. 1 As correctly stated by the court a quo, the mandamus suit is highly anticipatory.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the assailed September 19, 2017 and March 15, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143279.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018. aScITE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City vs. Local Government of Caloocan City, et al., 455 Phil. 956, 962 (2003).