Pinagpala Neighborhood Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Pinagpala Homeowners Association, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241151. March 27, 2019.]

PINAGPALA NEIGHBORHOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (PNHAI), petitioner, vs. PINAGPALA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (PHAI) AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD (HLURB), respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 March 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241151 — Pinagpala Neighborhood Homeowners Association, Inc. (PNHAI) versus Pinagpala Homeowners Association, Inc. (PHAI) and The Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)

After an exhaustive review of the instant Petition and its annexes, the Court resolves to DENY OUTRIGHT the instant Petition.

Although the instant Petition questioning the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated December 16, 2016 and Resolution 2 dated August 2, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 143504 was couched as a "Petition for Review," for all intents and purposes, the instant Petition is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The caption of the instant Petition clearly indicates that it is a petition for "Certiorari under Rule 65." 3 Moreover, all throughout the body of the instant Petition, the petitioner repeatedly alleged that the court a quo issued its Decision and Resolution with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 4 In addition, the petitioner itself admitted in its Manifestation and Correction 5 dated August 31, 2018 that the instant Petition was filed "under Rule 65." 6

One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.7

In assailing the Decision and Resolution of the court a quo, the remedy of appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was very much available to the petitioner. A simple perusal of the instant Petition would reveal that the issues raised are not jurisdictional in nature, but are centered on the supposed errors of judgment of the CA in affirming the actions of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, mere errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari. 8 Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision, and not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision, the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. 9

Jurisprudence holds that when a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright. 10 aDSIHc

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 237-248. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.

2.Id. at 264-268.

3.Id. at 9. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.

4. See id. at 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, and 40.

5.Id. at 287-290.

6.Id. at 287.

7.Catindig v. Vda. de Meneses, 656 Phil. 361, 375 (2011).

8.Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 608 (2003).

9.Catindig v. Vda. de Meneses, supra note 7, at 375.

10.Id.