SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235645. March 7, 2018.]
SPOUSES CHARLIE AND LERNA BABAYEN-ON, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF BENJAMIN HUGHES, SR., REPRESENTED BY BENJAMIN HUGHES, JR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 March 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235645 — Spouses Charlie and Lerna Babayen-on versus Heirs of Benjamin Hughes, Sr., represented by Benjamin Hughes, Jr.
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Decision 1 dated June 9, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated October 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, Special Twenty-First Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04326-MIN, the Court resolves to DENY the same and AFFIRM the CA Decision and Resolution for failure to show reversible error. cDHAES
Essentially, petitioners are assailing the Resolution 3 dated November 18, 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 38 (RTC), based on the fact that respondents were allowed to present their evidence ex parte. Such fact, however, was entirely precipitated by petitioners' lapses in procedure. Notably, in their Petition, petitioners merely invoke the liberal application of the rules without citing meritorious reasons therefor.
Unquestionably, the RTC cannot be faulted for merely enforcing the express mandate of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. Clearly, the assailed action of the RTC given the non-appearance of petitioners hardly amounts to reversible error. In any case, the RTC Resolution, as sustained by the CA, is based on the evidence, on record. Thus, considering that the instant Petition is filed under Rule 45, the Court is precluded from passing upon the appreciation of the evidence, being a question of fact.
An appeal by certiorari is not a matter of right but merely a matter of discretion. Here, the Court finds that petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
For the reasons above, the Petition is hereby DENIED. ASEcHI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 37-42. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring.
2.Id. at 54-55. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas concurring.
3.Id. at 79-84. Penned by Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal.