SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242665. December 5, 2018.]
SERGIO FORTI AND THE MOALBOAL RESORT, INCORPORATED, petitioners,vs. BASILISA Y. GOCOTANO, MELENDA GOCOTANO-BRUNE, AND JOEL Y. GOCOTANO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 December 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242665 (Sergio Forti and the Moalboal Resort, Incorporated v. Basilisa Y. Gocotano, Melenda Gocotano-Brune, and Joel Y. Gocotano)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for being the wrong mode of appeal to assail the January 26, 2018 Decision 2 and the June 28, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 11116.
Petitioners Sergio Forti and the Moalboal Resort, Incorporated's (petitioners) proper recourse to assail the CA's findings is to file a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), and not the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules. It is settled that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari would not lie if there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 4 Moreover, certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal 5 even if the ground raised is grave abuse of discretion, 6 as in this case. Records show that petitioners received the CA's Resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on August 8, 2018 but posted the instant petition for certiorari only on October 8, 2018 7 or way beyond the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period to interpose an appeal. 8 Thus, the petition is dismissible.
In any event, the issues raised in the petition are factual in nature, which factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court, 9 and are not to be disturbed unless they fall under the recognized exceptions, 10 which are not present in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-18.
2.Id. at 23-34. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos with Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.
3.Id. at 39-40.
4. See Republic v. Yang Chi Hao, 617 Phil. 422, 432 (2009).
5.Id.
6. See Balayan v. Acorda, 523 Phil. 305, 309 (2006).
7. See rollo, p. 4.
8. In Punongbayan-Visitacion v. People (see G.R. No. 194214, January 10, 2018), the Court held that it does not consider a petition for certiorari as an appeal if it was filed beyond the fifteen (15)-day period to interpose an appeal.
9. See Gepulle-Garbov. Spouses Garabato, 750 Phil. 846, 854-855 (2015).
10. See Equitable Insurance Corporation v. Transmodal International, Inc., G.R. No. 223592, August 7, 2017, 834 SCRA 581, 588-589.