SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236168. April 18, 2018.]
THE HEIRS OF ANTONIO FAVIS, REPRESENTED BY BENJAMIN G. FAVIS, 1petitioners, vs.ATTY. CARLOS M. CANILAO, ENGR. NAZITA F. BAÑEZ AND HON. MAURICIO G. DOMOGAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated18 April 2018which reads as follows: TIADCc
"G.R. No. 236168 — The Heirs of Antonio Favis, represented by Benjamin G. Favisversus Atty. Carlos M. Canilao, Engr. Nazita F. Bañez and Hon. Mauricio G. Domogan
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Decision 2 dated June 14, 2017 and the Resolution 3 dated November 21, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138630, the Court resolves to DENY the same.
An appeal under Rule 45 is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. 4 Here, the Court finds that the CA committed no reversible error in dismissing the Rule 65 petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioners. Based on the standard of grave abuse of discretion, the Court affirms the CA's dismissal as the Regional Trial Court (RTC) merely enforced the mandatory requirement in Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
Be that as it may, even if the foregoing procedural rule were to be relaxed, based on the established facts, the Court finds that petitioners failed to establish their right to injunctive relief before the RTC.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the instant Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Represented by The Law Firm of Rondez & Partners. Counsel on record is Don Immanuel V. C. Vergara.
2.Rollo, pp. 89-101. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.
3.Id. at 114-115.
4. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 6.