SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245870. June 3, 2019.]
JOSEPH HARRY WALTER POOLE-BLUNDEN, petitioner, vs.VALLEY VIEW ROYALE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AND VALLEY VIEW ROYALE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 2014 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245870 (Joseph Harry Walter Poole-Blunden v. Valley View Royale Homeowners Association, Inc. and Valley View Royale Homeowners Association, Inc. 2014 Board of Directors)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 outright for petitioner Joseph Harry Walter Poole-Blunden's (petitioner) failure to show proof of service of the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) in violation of Section 3, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), and for his failure to provide an explanation as to why service of the petition was not done personally to respondents Valley View Royale Homeowners Association, Inc. and Valley View Royale Homeowners Association, Inc. 2014 Board of Directors, which is in violation of Section 11, Rule 13 of the same Rules.
Section 3, 2 Rule 45 of the Rules, clearly requires that in filing petitions for review on certiorari, there must be proof of service of a copy thereof on the lower court concerned, which must be submitted together with the petition. While Section 11, 3 Rule 13 of the same Rules, provides that resort to other modes of service, other than personal service, must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally, the same section also provides that a violation thereof may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. These procedural infirmities are apparent on the face of the petition, and are grounds for the immediate dismissal of petitioner's case.
In any event, there are no reversible errors in the September 18, 2018 4 and March 4, 2019 5 Resolutions rendered by the CA. As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's violation of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a ground to dismiss the petition filed before it. Settled is the rule that failure to comply with the said doctrine will result in the dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action. 6 While there are accepted exceptions to this doctrine, 7 petitioner has failed to show that any applies to his case.
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2. Section 3. Docket and other lawful fees;proof of service of petition. — Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition. Proof of service of a copy thereof on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted togetherwith the petition. (Emphasis supplied)
3. Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. — Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompaniedby a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (Emphasis supplied)
4.Rollo, pp. 13-16. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
5.Id. at 9-11.
6.Smart Communications, Inc. v. Aldecoa, 717 Phil. 577, 604 (2013).
7.Republic v. Lacap, 546 Phil. 87, 97-98 (2007).