SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246872. June 3, 2019.]
GOMECO METAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS AND MEGAWORLD CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246872 (Gomeco Metal Corporation v. The Court of Appeals and Megaworld Corporation)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 7, 2018 Decision 2 and the March 15, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104928 for failure of petitioner Gomeco Metal Corporation (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA gravely abused its discretion in holding that it failed to prove through the required evidentiary threshold, i.e., preponderance of evidence, its entitlement to the relief sought.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to prove the existence of all the conditions under the letter of confirmation 4 that would warrant the release of the remaining balance of the contract. 5 Particularly, it failed to prove that private respondent Megaworld Corporation made an express and full acceptance of the project. 6 In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving its allegations through preponderance of evidence, 7 especially in instances when the defendant was unable to present its evidence. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court has ascertained that the relief is warranted by the evidence offered and the facts proven by the presenting party. 8 TIADCc
Moreover, it bears emphasis that the special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. The Court has often reminded members of the bench and bar that this extraordinary action lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. 9 Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy was available but was lost through fault or negligence, 10 as in this case. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave.)''
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Titled "Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction." Rollo, pp. 3-30.
2.Id. at 34-43. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.
3.Id. at 45-47. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, concurring.
4. Dated October 3, 1996. Id. at 58-62.
5. See id. at 40-42.
6. See id. at 41-42.
7. See Evangelista v. Spouses Andolong, 800 Phil. 189, 194 (2016).
8. See Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, 519 Phil. 791, 803 (2006).
9.Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 716 Phil. 500, 513 (2013), citing Balayan v. Acorda, 523 Phil. 305, 309 (2006).
10.Id. at 513, citing Bugarin v. Palisoc, 513 Phil. 59, 66-67 (2005).