SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252468. August 26, 2020.]
HEIRS OF SPOUSES MATEO S. VENTURA AND ROSITA FELIPE-VENTURA, REPRESENTED BY SPOUSES JOSE VENTURA AND LUZVIMINDA MELCHOR-VENTURA, petitioners, vs.SPOUSES HILARIO MELCHOR AND LORETA MELCHOR, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 15, ILOCOS NORTE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 26 August 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252468 (Heirs of Spouses Mateo S. Ventura and Rosita Felipe-Ventura, represented by Spouses Jose Ventura and Luzviminda Melchor-Ventura v. Spouses Hilario Melchor and Loreta Melchor, Court of Appeals, Manila, Regional Trial Court Branch 15, Ilocos Norte). — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 for being the wrong mode of appeal in assailing the Decision 2 dated May 31, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated February 4, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA).
While the present Petition is denominated as a Petition for Review on Certiorari, the averments of the Heirs of Spouses Mateo S. Ventura and Rosita Felipe-Ventura, represented by Spouses Jose Ventura and Luzviminda Melchor-Ventura (petitioners), are characteristic of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Specifically, petitioners allege that both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the CA committed grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to excess or lack of jurisdiction in rendering their respective decisions. Petitioners further allege that under the circumstances, there is no appeal, neither any plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law than thru the present petition.
In Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc., 4 the Court ruled that the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the CA is a petition for review under Rule 45 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court explained that as provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including Rule 45. 5
Here, petitioners are assailing the Decision 6 dated May 31, 2019 and Resolution 7 dated February 4, 2020 of the CA which affirmed the RTC's dismissal of their complaint before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). Thus, the proper remedy is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Further, even if the present Petition 8 is to be considered as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, it would still be dismissed for having been filed out of time. As admitted by petitioners, they received the CA Resolution 9 dated February 4, 2020 which denied their Motion for Reconsideration on February 19, 2020. Thus, they only had 15 days or until March 5, 2020 within which to file their petition before the Court. However, they failed to do so as they filed the present petition only on June 8, 2020 via registered mail. Petitioners cannot invoke the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse for their belated filing. Under the Court's Administrative Circular No. 31-2020, the extension granted to litigants for the filing of their submissions in view of the rising COVID-19 infections applies only to those submissions that fall due during the period from March 15, 2020 until April 2020. Administrative Circular No. 31-2020 provides in part:
6. The filing of petitions and appeals, complaints, motions, pleadings, and other Court submissions that fall due during the period from 15 March 2020 until 15 April 2020 is EXTENDED for THIRTY (30) calendar days counted from 16 April 2020. x x x.
• Consequently, the subsequent issuance of the Court, i.e., Administrative Circular No. 39-2020 10 issued on May 14, 2020 that grants another extension to the filing of submissions that fall due up to May 31, 2020 in areas under the Modified Enhanced Community Quarantine, does not apply to petitioners.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated May 31, 2019 and Resolution dated February 4, 2020 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-24.
2.Id. at 59-71; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Associate Justices Sesinando F. Villon and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
3.Id. at 73-75; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
4. 677 Phil. 13 (2011).
5.Id. at 51.
6.Rollo, pp. 59-71.
7.Id. at 73-75.
8.Id. at 5-24.
9.Id. at 73-75.
10. Administrative Circular No. 39-2020 provides in part:
4. The filing of petitions, appeals, complaints, motions, pleadings and other submissions that fall due up to 31 May 2020 before the courts in areas under MECQ areas is extended for 30 calendar days, counted from 1 June 2020 x x x.