SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242804. February 6, 2019.]
NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.ANTONIO H. TIU, FOR HIMSELF AND REPRESENTATIVE OF MARIO G. BARRIA, RICARDO DELFIN A. KING, HENRY YUNEZ, DENNIS T. BARRIA, MARIO KING, EDWIN TAN UNJO AND RODULFO TIU, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242804 — National Grid Corporation of the Philippines versus Antonio H. Tiu, for himself and representative of Mario G. Barria, Ricardo Delfin A. King, Henry Yunez, Dennis T. Barria, Mario King, Edwin Tan Unjo and Rodulfo Tiu, et al.
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the assailed Resolutions dated March 27, 2018 1 and October 3, 2018 2 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08614-MIN, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition.
Foremost, the Court notes that petitioner National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (petitioner NGCP) attached a mere photocopy of the Resolution dated March 27, 2018, the very Resolution that petitioner NGCP is assailing. On that ground alone, as per Sections 4 and 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which state that the failure of the petitioner to attach a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed decision or resolution is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition, the instant Petition merits outright dismissal.
In any case, even if the Court does away with this serious procedural error, the instant Petition still warrants dismissal for lack of merit.
It is not disputed that prior to filing its certiorari petition before the CA, petitioner NGCP failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's 3 assailed Order dated November 29, 2017. 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. 4 In attempting to sidestep this elementary rule, petitioner NGCP argues that special consideration should be observed since the certiorari petition is supposedly steeped with public interest. The argument fails to convince. It must be emphasized that there is absolutely no public interest involved in petitioner NGCP's attempt to regain its ability to file an appeal amidst the numerous serious procedural errors it committed.
To make matters worse, petitioner NGCP filed its certiorari petition out of time. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that a certiorari petition should be filed within 60 days from notice of judgment, order, or resolution. According to the factual finding of the CA, which the Court will not reverse absent any compelling reason, the Order dated November 29, 2017 subject of the certiorari petition was received by petitioner NGCP's counsel on December 18, 2017. Hence, when petitioner NGCP filed the certiorari petition on March 18, 2018, the 60-day period had already lapsed.
Even if the Court goes deeper and delves into the issues raised in the certiorari petition, the instant Petition nonetheless merits dismissal. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioner NGCP's Notice of Appeal in its Order dated November 29, 2017. As correctly ruled by the RTC, the period for which a Notice of Appeal could have been filed by petitioner NGCP had severely lapsed. To reiterate, the RTC's Decision was received by petitioner NGCP on October 29, 2014. Petitioner NGCP only filed a Notice of Appeal on October 23, 2017.
Petitioner NGCP disputes this by arguing that a fresh period to appeal was granted to it when it received on October 19, 2017 the RTC's Order dated August 25, 2017, which denied petitioner NGCP's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Additional Hearings for being filed out of time. The argument is erroneous. As it was grossly filed out of time, i.e., more than one month from the receipt of the RTC's Decision, petitioner NGCP's Motion for Reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper that was incapable of producing any fresh period to appeal.
As a final note, the Court cannot accept petitioner NGCP's desperate plea for a relaxation and liberal application of the procedural rules. As the Court has held before, the utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. 5 It is clear from the records of the instant case that time and time again, petitioner NGCP has ignored elementary procedural rules. Such cannot be countenanced. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave; HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 48-49. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Walter S. Ong concurring.
2.Id. at 51-53.
3. Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 24.
4. See Catindig v. Vda. de Meneses, 656 Phil. 361, 375 (2011).
5.Cator v. Spouses Jayag, G.R. No. 220786, November 25, 2015 (Unsigned Resolution).