FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243274. February 11, 2019.]
CARLITO DELLOMOS, petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND PATRIA B. TUMLOS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 11, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243274 — Carlito Dellomos, Petitioner, v. Court of Appeals and Patria B. Tumlos, Respondents.
Considering the allegations, arguments and issues raised in the instant Petition for Certiorari, the Court resolves to DISMISS the same for being an improper mode of appeal.
A petition for certiorari is a remedy available in the absence of an appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Moreover, the proper recourse in assailing the judgment or final order of the Court of Appeals (CA) is by filing with the Court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 1
In this case, instead of filing a Rule 45 petition to challenge the CA Decision that completely disposed of the case, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari which is not a substitute for lost appeal. Such being the case, the instant petition is dismissible for being an improper remedy. Moreover, with the lapse of the period within which to file a Rule 45 petition, the CA Decision already attained finality.
In addition, even granting just for argument's sake that petitioner properly filed this petition, the same is still dismissible as he did not file a prior motion for reconsideration with the CA, which motion is a condition precedent before filing a petition for certiorari. While there are exceptions to this requirement, none was found to exist in the case at bench. 2
Finally, even if we treat the petition as filed under Rule 45, the same must still be dismissed for having been filed late.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant Petition for Certiorari.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Olongapo City v. Subic Water and Sewerage Co., Inc., G.R. No. 171626, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 132, 143-145.
2.Nuque v. Aquino, G.R. No. 193058, July 8, 2015, 762 SCRA 209, 217-218.