SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242228. January 7, 2019.]
HEIRS OF CASTOR ANGARA AND ISIDRA RIVERA AND SPOUSES GERMAN OCAMPO AND JUANITA ANGARA, petitioners,vs. HONORABLE MAXIMO B. ANCHETA, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BALER, AURORA, BRANCH 90 AND THE HEIRS OF CANUTO MACAM AND URSULA DELA ROSA, REPRESENTED BY RAYMUNDO M. TOMAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 January 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242228 (Heirs of Castor Angara and Isidra Rivera and Spouses German Ocampo and Juanita Angara v. Honorable Maximo B. Ancheta, Jr., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branch 90 and the Heirs of Canuto Macam and Ursula Dela Rosa, represented by Raymundo M. Tomas)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the November 27, 2017 Decision 2 and the August 1, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149777 for failure of petitioners Heirs of Castor Angara and Isidra Rivera and Spouses German Ocampo and Juanita Angara (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing their special civil action for certiorari from the Order 4 denying their motion to dismiss. 5
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for a certiorari petition to prosper, there should be a concurrence of the essential requisites, to wit: (a) the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction; and (b) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding. 6 As correctly ruled by the CA, a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy from the order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss, as they may still file their answer and proceed to trial. 7 Moreover, a certiorari action is a remedy designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. 8 Only when the denial of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion can the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari be justified, 9 which does not obtain in this case, considering that the grounds raised by petitioners require the presentation of evidence in the course of trial and that lack of cause of action is a matter of defense, not a ground for a motion to dismiss. 10
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 52-74.
2.Id. at 76-85. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
3.Id. at 87-88.
4. Dated May 28, 2016. Penned by Presiding Judge Maximo B. Ancheta, Jr.; id. at 169-176.
5. Dated November 11, 2015. Id. at 150-158.
6.Guntalilib v. Dela Cruz, 789 Phil. 287, 297 (2016).
7. See rollo, p. 80.
8. See Heirs of Loyola v. CA, 803 Phil. 143, 153-154 (2017).
9.Guntalilib v. Dela Cruz, supra note 6, at 304.
10. See rollo, pp. 81-83.