SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252002. September 16, 2020.]
JONATHAN B. GONZALES, petitioner,vs. ANGELITO B. GABO and JOMAR B. GABO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252002 (Jonathan B. Gonzales v. Angelito B. Gabo and Jomar B. Gabo). — After reviewing the records of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the Resolutions dated 16 April 2019 1 and 27 January 2020 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 158701 for failure of petitioner Jonathan B. Gonzales (Gonzales) to show that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for availing of the wrong remedy.
Certiorari generally lies only when there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy available. 3 In Magestrado v. People, 4We held that certiorari 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 lost appeal.
In the present case, appeal was available. It was adequate to deal with any question whether of fact or of law, whether of error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion or error of judgment which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) might have committed. 5 In Estate of Salud Jimenez v. PEZA, 6We held that as long as a court acts within its jurisdiction and does not gravely abuse its discretion in the exercise thereof, any supposed error committed by it will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable by a timely appeal and not assailable by a special civil action of certiorari.
As correctly ruled by the CA, Gonzales received the Order 7 of the RTC dated 28 September 2018 on 11 October 2018. Thus, Gonzales only had until 26 October 2018 to file a petition for review with the CA. However, Gonzales let the deadline pass and instead filed a Petition for Certiorari on 10 December 2018. For his failure to file a timely appeal, the RTC's dismissal of the case had become final and executory.
While We have, on occasion, applied liberality on the application of the Rules and in the interest of justice, this Court found no instance in the present case to warrant such. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed Gonzales' Petition for Certiorari as a wrong remedy.
SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring; id. at 26-27.
3. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
4. 554 Phil. 25, 34 (2007).
5. See id.
6. 402 Phil. 271, 284 (2001).
7. Rendered by Presiding Judge Anna Leah Y. Tiongson-Mendoza; rollo, pp. 28-32.