SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257515. November 29, 2021.]
LEMUEL EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. MA. CARMINA RAMOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 November 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257515 (Lemuel Evangelista v. Ma. Carmina Ramos). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for being the wrong remedy and for violating the principle of hierarchy of courts.
Petitioner Lemuel Evangelista (petitioner) availed of the wrong remedy and violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by directly filing the present petition. The Court has held that the proper remedy from decisions of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, such as those resolving petitions for certiorari under Rule 65, should have been to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals by way of notice of appeal. 2 Petitioner claims that a direct resort to this Court through a Rule 45 petition was warranted 'as both the [Metropolitan Trial Court's (MeTC)] in the subject criminal case and the [Regional Trial Court's (RTC)] in the special civil action are erroneously, . . ., applying the [Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases], specifically on the requirement of orally offering the evidence.' 3 Other than this statement, however, petitioner offers no cogent reason to justify the direct invocation of this Court's jurisdiction. We have often ruled that the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and a direct invocation of its original jurisdiction will only be allowed if the petition has clearly and specifically set out special and important reasons or if there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which call for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. 4 However, this has not been established in the present case. In view of the foregoing, the outright denial of this petition is warranted.
With the dismissal of the instant petition, petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is necessarily DENIED.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on Official Leave).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-45.
2.BF Citiland Corp. v. Otake, 640 Phil. 261, 270 (2010).
3.Rollo, p. 4.
4.PCGG Chairman Elma, et al. v. Jacobi, et al., 689 Phil. 307, 336 (2012).