SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235621. March 14, 2018.]
ENGR. JAIME S. DAITO, petitioner,vs. YOLANDA BATO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 March 2018which reads as follows: HESIcT
"G.R. No. 235621 — Engr. Jaime S. Daito versus Yolanda Bato
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Resolutions dated December 22, 2016 1 and November 7, 2017 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147929, the Court resolves to DENY the same and AFFIRM the CA Resolutions for failure to show reversible error.
The CA cannot be faulted for dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds. Based on the facts, the Rule 43 petition for review was marred by a litany of procedural defects — the collective effect of which warrants the outright dismissal of the appeal. Accordingly, due to petitioner's non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 43, the CA was correct to dismiss the petition for review based on Section 7 of such Rule, which states:
SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the 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. 3
Based on the foregoing alone, the Court finds that the CA committed no reversible error correctible through the instant appeal by certiorari.
Be that as it may, after careful review of the Petition, the Court affirms the CA's finding that res judicata is inapplicable to this case. As correctly observed by the CA, the undocketed case was dismissed while it was still in the "preliminary investigation" stage, which is merely aimed at determining the existence of probable cause for the purpose of determining whether or not to proceed with an administrative complaint. Thus, there was yet no decision on the merits as the case had yet to enter the adjudication stage.
An appeal by certiorari is not a matter of right but merely a matter of discretion. Here, the Court finds that petitioner failed to establish his entitlement to the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
For the reasons above, the Petition is hereby DENIED. caITAC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24 to 31-A. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
2.Id. at 33-36.
3. RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, Sec. 7.