FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 192381. October 9, 2019.]
HEIRS OF CONCEPCION VDA. DE VIDAL, ET AL., petitioners, vs.A.C. AGUILA & SONS, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 9, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 192381 (HEIRS OF CONCEPCION VDA. DE VIDAL, et al., Petitioners, v. A.C. AGUILA & SONS, et al., Respondents.) — We dismiss this petition for failure of the petitioners to prove that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its August 28, 2009 Decision 1 and May 27, 2010 Resolution 2 in CA-G.R. CV No. 87876.
The petitioners should be reminded that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when it is the party's own negligence or error in the choice of remedy which occasioned such loss. 3 Here, the petitioners evidently resorted to a petition for certiorari when it failed to timely file its petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court even after having filed two motions for extensions to file a petition for review. As such, the assailed August 28, 2009 decision and May 27, 2010 resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 87876 have already attained finality. IDTSEH
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari; and AFFIRMS the August 28, 2009 Decision and May 27, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87876.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 141-161; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro.
2.Id. at 162-168; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso and Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo.
3.Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) v. See, G.R. No. 170292, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 478, 488.