SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225185. August 3, 2016.]
CELSO G. REGENCIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS-MINDANAO [FORMER SPECIAL 22ND DIVISION, NAMELY, RAFAEL ANTONIO M. SANTOS, EDGARDO A. CAMELLO AND HENRI JEAN PAUL INTING; HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR.; RUDERIC C. MARZO [VICE MAYOR, ILIGAN CITY]; MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD [NAMELY, PROVIDENCIO A. ABRAGAN, JR., MARLENE L. YOUNG, FREDERICK W. SIAO, MICHELLE E. SWEET-BOOC, EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY, ARIEL P. ANGHAY, BAYANI C. AREOLA, ROY C. OPENIANO, USAFENO F. OBIAL, ALFREDO R. BUSICO, CESARVE C. SIACOR], respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225185 — Celso G. Regencia vs. Court of Appeals-Mindanao [Former Special 22nd Division, namely, Rafael Antonio M. Santos, Edgardo A. Camello and Henri Jean Paul Inting; Hon. Paquito Ochoa, Jr.; Ruderic C. Marzo [Vice Mayor, Iligan City]; Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod [namely, Providencio A. Abragan, Jr., Marlene L. Young, Frederick W. Siao, Michelle E. Sweet-Booc, Emmanuel C. Salibay, Ariel P. Anghay, Bayani C. Areola, Roy C. Openiano, Usafeno F. Obial, Alfredo R. Busico, Cesarve C. Siacor]
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari a) for non-submission of proof of service of the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Office of the Solicitor General as required by Section 2 (c), Rule 56, Section 3, 3rd par., Rule 46, in relation to Section 2, 1st par., Rule 56 and Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court; and (b) for being a wrong mode of appeal under the Rules.
At first glance, petitioner's Petition for Certiorari should be summarily dismissed for being a wrong remedy. The CA promulgated its Decision dismissing petitioner's Petition for Review on December 4, 2015. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied the same in its Resolution of April 6, 2016, notice of which was received by petitioner on April 22, 2016. Petitioner's remedy should have been to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Counting 15 days from receipt of the Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration, he had only until May 7, 2016 to file said petition before this Court. However, instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, petitioner filed on June 13, 2016 this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 or one month and six days after the lapse of the allotted period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.
Apparently, petitioner resorted to this special civil action after failing to appeal within the 15-day reglementary period. This cannot be countenanced. The special civil action of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal which petitioner already lost. Certiorari lies only where there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. There is no reason why the questions being raised by petitioner could not have been raised on appeal.
Concededly, there were occasions when this Court treated a petition for certiorari as one filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, the circumstances prevailing in the instant case do not justify a deviation from a general rule. Notably, the instant Petition was filed way beyond the reglementary period allowed under Rule 45 without any justifiable reason therefor nor any reasonable explanation being proffered by petitioner. In addition, the arguments he cited are without merit and are in fact a mere rehash of the issues raised before and judiciously resolved by the tribunals below. CHTAIc
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed December 4, 2015 Decision and April 6, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 06704-MIN. (J. Brion, on leave)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court