SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241996. June 19, 2019.]
GEOFFREY M. MARTINEZ, petitioner, vs.MARIONETTE MARTINEZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241996 — Geoffrey M. Martinez versus Marionette Martinez
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated November 17, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated August 30, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 146844, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error that warrants the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The instant Petition was filed out of time. It must be stressed that upon petitioner's Very Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition 3 dated October 3, 2018, the Court issued a Resolution 4 dated October 15, 2018 resolving to grant petitioner's motion for extension of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, with a warning that the same shall be the last and no further extension will be given. Hence, petitioner had 30 days from October 3, 2018, or until November 2, 2018, to file his appeal. HTcADC
However, the records reveal that the Court was only able to receive petitioner's appeal via private courier on November 12, 2018. 5 Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, there are only two (2) modes by which a party may file a pleading before the courts: (1) by personal filing — presenting the original copies thereof personally to the clerk of court, or (2) by registered mail. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, petitioner's appeal was filed on November 12, 2018, which was well beyond the already extended deadline granted by the Court. According to Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court may grant a 30-day extension to file an appeal only once. Hence, the instant Petition must be denied for being filed out of time.
To make matters worse, petitioner also failed to observe A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC Re: Proposed Rules on E-Filing, which mandatorily requires that a CD and a sworn verified declaration stating that the pleading and the annexes submitted electronically with the Court are complete and true copies. 6
In any case, even if the Court does away with the aforesaid fatal procedural defects, the instant Petition remains to be unmeritorious.
As correctly noted by the CA in its assailed Decision, petitioner assailed the RTC's 7 Order dated July 11, 2016 by filing his certiorari petition before the CA without first asking for a reconsideration of the aforesaid Order before the RTC. It is elementary that in order for a certiorari petition to prosper, there must be no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. Where another remedy, such as a motion for reconsideration, is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. 8 CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." (LAZARO-JAVIER, J., no part; LEONEN, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated April 15, 2019)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-34. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
2.Id. at 117-123.
3.Id. at 3-6.
4.Id. at 7.
5.Id. at 8.
6. A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC, Sec. 6.
7. Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 199 in Civil Case No. 10-0058; see rollo, pp. 24 and 34.
8. See Catindig v. Vda. de Meneses, 656 Phil. 361, 375 (2011).