SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246915. June 26, 2019.]
BERNARDO MABBAGU y TULIAO, * petitioner, vs.HONORABLE AUGUSTO JOSE Y. ARREZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 133, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated26 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246915 (Bernardo Mabbagu y Tuliao v. Honorable Augusto Jose Y. Arreza, in his capacity as the Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 133, and the People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 filed by petitioner Bernardo Mabbagu y Tuliao (petitioner) for having availed of the wrong remedy and for violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
A review of the petition shows that the same is dismissible for petitioner's failure to show that there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that they can seek in assailing the January 3, 2019 Decision 2 and the March 8, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 133 in Criminal Case No. M-MKT-16-06127. It is settled that the party filing a petition for certiorari must be able to show that his or her resort to such extraordinary remedy is justified by the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and failure to do so renders such petition dismissible, 4 as in this case. HTcADC
Moreover, the petition is likewise dismissible for failure to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. It is a hornbook principle that, although the Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) have concurrence of jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, petitioner has no unrestrained freedom to choose before which court to file his certiorari petition. It is patently clear from the petition that it raises questions of both fact and law which necessitates that it must have first been brought before the CA. 5 A direct invocation of the Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition, 6 which are absent in this case. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* "Rachel Mabbagu y Acosta," petitioner's co-accused, was included in the Petition's title; see rollo, p. 6.
1.Id. at 6-23.
2.Id. at 29-36. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Augusto Jose Y. Arreza.
3.Id. at 26-28.
4. See Candelaria v. Regional Trial Court, Br. 42, City of San Fernando, 739 Phil. 1, 8 (2014), citing Visca v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 255 Phil. 213, 216-217 (1989).
5. See Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760, 771 (2013).
6. See Rayos v. City of Manila, 678 Phil. 952, 958 (2011).