SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251643. July 15, 2020.]
IRMINA AND MR. CABRAL, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES LYN AND ALLAN CO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JANE ONG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 July 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251643 (Irmina and Mr. Cabral v. Spouses Lyn and Allan Co, represented by their attorney-in-fact, Jane Ong). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Resolutions dated 22 December 2016 2 and 29 January 2020 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148558 for failure of petitioners Irmina Cabral and Mr. Cabral (collectively, Spouses Cabral) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing their Petition for Certiorari for being a wrong remedy.
The Court in Samson v. Judge Fiel-Macaraig, 4 held that:
The appellate court correctly ruled that the petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy. A writ of certiorari lies only for an error of jurisdiction. It can be availed of only if the lower tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction but an error of law or fact which is a mistake of judgment, certiorari is not available. In such case, the remedy is appeal.
xxx xxx xxx
The remedy to obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on the merits is appeal. This is true even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision. The availability of the right to appeal precludes recourse to the special civil action for certiorari. The RTC Order subject of the petition was a final judgment which disposed of the case on the merits; hence, it was a subject for an ordinary appeal, not a petition for certiorari. 5
Since, the 6 June 2016 Decision 6 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 72 was a final judgment which disposed of the case on the merits, the remedy of Spouses Cabral was to file an ordinary appeal before the CA, and not a Petition for Certiorari. Assuming for the sake of argument that certiorari may lie in the instant case, Spouses Cabral miserably failed to show that the RTC judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or gravely abused her discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The other issues raised in this petition involve questions of fact as it requires an examination of the evidence on record, hence, not proper in this petition. The Court is not a trier of facts and the function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. 7
SO ORDERED."(Hernando, J., no part; Lopez, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated 8 June 2020. Gaerlan, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2780 dated 11 May 2020.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 1 March 2020; rollo, pp. 30-52.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring; id. at 58-61.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Louis P. Acosta, concurring; id. at 195-199.
4. 625 Phil. 184 (2010).
5.Id. at 189-190.
6. Penned by Presiding Judge Richard A. Paradeza; rollo, pp. 156-163.
7.Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229881, 5 September 2018.