SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225913. November 9, 2016.]
SIMEON DIMAANDAL, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES CARLOS C. AGUILAR AND HAYDEE N. AGUILAR, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), CLERK OF COURT IV EX OFFICIO SHERIFF ZANDRA T. BATO, DEPUTY SHERIFF ROLANDO C. CORDOVA, AND THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 275, LAS PIÑAS CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 09 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225913 — Simeon Dimaandal, petitioner vs. Spouses Carlos C. Aguilar and Haydee N. Aguilar, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Clerk of Court IV Ex Officio Sheriff Zandra T. Bato, Deputy Sheriff Rolando C. Cordova, and the Honorable Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 275, Las Piñas City, respondents.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DISMISS the instant Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for: (a) being a wrong remedy under the Rules and evidently used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal under Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court; (b) defective verification as the same is based on affiant's "own knowledge and belief, based on authentic records made available to me"; and, (c) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the October 29, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 275, Las Piñas City (RTC) in Civil Case No. LP-07-0097.
It is settled that "a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proper only when there is neither appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal . . . ." 1 Thus:
. . . Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that the proper remedy to question a judgment, final order or resolution of the CA, as in the present case, is a petition for review on certiorari regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved. . . .
This Court has ruled that because an appeal was available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari would not be entertained. We emphasized in that case that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion.
By filing the present special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, petitioners, therefore, clearly availed themselves of the wrong remedy. Under Supreme Court Circular 2-90, an appeal taken to this Court or to the CA by a wrong or an inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal. On this score alone, the instant petition is dismissible. 2
Moreover, the instant Petition's presentation of issues is impermissible as such was in a manner as to straddle both judicial remedies of an appeal under Rule 45 and certiorari pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules. 3
In any event, petitioner's unsupported and general claims of capriciousness on the part of the CA are insufficient to advance his cause. "Mere allegations of grave abuse of discretion, however, are not enough to establish this ground; so also, mere abuse of discretion is not sufficient. On the petitioner lies the burden of demonstrating, plainly and distinctly, all facts essential to establish its right to a writ of certiorari." 4 caITAC
ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED.
Petitioner's Motion to Admit Attached Petition for Certiorari is NOTED.
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from November 8-15, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Local Water Utilities Administration Employees Association for Progress vs. Local Water Utilities Administration, G.R. Nos. 206808-09, September 7, 2016.
2. Id.; citations omitted.
3. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd., 568 Phil. 282, 295 (2008).
4. People vs. Sandiganbayan, 681 Phil. 90, 110 (2012); citations omitted.