FIRST DIVISION
[UDK-16508. January 15, 2020.]
VANESSA JOSUE y JOMEL, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILFREDO M. BAJAL, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 15, 2020which reads as follows:
"UDK-16508 — VANESSA JOSUE y JOMEL, petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and WILFREDO M. BAJAL, respondents.
The petition for review on certiorari is not a natural right nor a resort integral to the exercise of due process. On the contrary, it is an extraordinary remedy, the allowance of which is a prerogative of the court and subject to its discretion. 1 It being undemandable as a matter of right, the recourse of certiorari requires strict adherence to the provisions of law.
Here, Vanessa Josue y Jomel (petitioner) committed the fatal misstep of failing to attach to the Petition for Certiorari (RTC Petition) before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 196 (RTC), the certified true copies of the following documents: 1) the prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibits; 2) the Order dated February 1, 2017 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 77 (MeTC) admitting said formal offer; 3) the March 7, 2017 MeTC Order, when petitioner's counsel prayed for the resetting of her presentation of evidence; 4) the MeTC April 17, 2017 Order which declared petitioner's right to present evidence waived; and 5) the May 8, 2017 Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner, which sought the reversal of the declaration of waiver of her right to present evidence. 2 DETACa
Verily, the requirement of submission of these documents serves a purpose that is foremost in the Court's resolution of the RTC Petition before it, i.e., whether the lower court erred, as may be evidenced by the very documents required for attachment.
To be sure, the Court has allowed for leniency in the observance of procedural rules, for compelling reasons, and in order to correct or avert clear injustice. Far from the case, however, petitioner here failed to demonstrate any persuasive reason for the said liberality to apply.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED.
The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 77, Parañaque City, and the Court of Appeals are hereby DROPPED as party respondents in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. HEITAD
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Batelec II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Energy Industry Administration Bureau, 488 Phil. 470 (2004).
2.Rollo, pp. 82-83.