SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238947. June 6, 2018.]
COUNTRY HOMES APPLIANCE PLAZA CORPORATION AND/OR CRESENCIO YAP AND LILY YAP, petitioners,vs. MARY ANNE BELLUGA, COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 June 2018which reads as follows: HESIcT
"G.R. No. 238947 — Country Homes Appliance Plaza Corporation and/or Cresencio Yap and Lily Yap versus Mary Anne Belluga, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Decision 1 dated June 29, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated January 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 07528-MIN, the Court resolves to DISMISS the Petition.
Under Rule 65, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may only be availed of when there is "no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." 3 Such rule is unequivocal and well-entrenched in jurisprudence. Thus, a special civil action of certiorari cannot substitute an appeal, i.e., a Rule 45 appeal by certiorari, where the latter remedy is available. In Badiola v. Court of Appeals, 4 the Court held that a Rule 65 petition filed in lieu of an available appeal merits an outright dismissal following Rule 56, Section 5 (f) of the Rules.
Here, it is undisputed that petitioners filed a previous petition for certiorari before the CA, following the National Labor Relations Commission's Order denying their Motion for Reconsideration (MR). Accordingly, upon the dismissal of the said petition by the CA, the proper recourse would have been to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is an available mode of appeal, instead of the instant Petition under Rule 65.
In this case, petitioners had no reason not to avail of an appeal under Rule 45 after receipt of the CA Resolution dated January 31, 2018 denying their MR. As borne out by the records, petitioners received such Resolution on February 8, 2018. 5 Thus, they only had until February 23, 2018 to file an appeal via Rule 45. However, the instant Petition was filed only on May 8, 2018. By that time, petitioners had already lost their right to appeal and therefore cannot resort to a Rule 65 petition as a substitute remedy. caITAC
More importantly, even if the Court were to consider the 60-day period under Rule 65, petitioners only had until April 9, 2018. Hence, the Petition was filed out of time as petitioners only filed almost a full month after the expiration of the reglementary period. Perforce, the assailed Decision date June 29, 2017 of the CA had already lapsed into finality by operation of law as no appeal was perfected on time. 6 This is pursuant to the doctrine of finality of judgment which mandates that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable; it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. 7
Parenthetically, the Court also notes the following lapses in procedure committed by petitioners: (i) failure to attach a certified true copy of the Decision dated June 29, 2017 of the CA; (ii) no verified statement of material date of receipt of the said Decision; (iii) no competent evidence of identity of the affiant who signed the verification and certification; (iv) the Affidavit of Service was notarized a day prior to the actual posting of copies of the Petition to private respondent and the CA; and (v) the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping was signed by a person without proof of authority to sign for any of the petitioners.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-36. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño concurring.
2.Id. at 27-28.
3. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 1.
4. 575 Phil. 514, 533 (2008); see also Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 599 Phil. 158 (2009) and Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 484 Phil. 438, 444 (2004).
5.Rollo, p. 26.
6. See Griffith v. Estur, 576 Phil. 810, 817 (2008).
7.Id. at 816.