SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252194. June 21, 2021.]
CORAZON TABLANTE, petitioner,vs. ALBERT B. TOLENTINO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 June 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252194 (Corazon Tablante vs. Albert B. Tolentino). — The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner Corazon Tablante's (Tablante) motions for first and second extension totalling sixty (60) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 5, 2019 2 and February 24, 2020 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 161546 for Tablante's failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing her petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy.
In the instant case, Tablante filed a petition for certiorari4 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) questioning the Metropolitan Trial Court's denial of her motion for new trial. A petition for certiorari is an original action and therefore, the RTC took cognizance of and resolved the aforesaid petition in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. 5 As such, pursuant to Section 2 (a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, appeal to the CA shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, which is the RTC in this case. Time and again, the Court has reiterated the principle that the writ of certiorari is not a substitute for appeal. 6 Tablante's failure to file the notice of appeal with the RTC was fatal to her cause and resulted in the RTC Decision 7 dated January 10, 2019 and Order 8 dated April 1, 2019 in Case No. R-MND-17-01742-SP to attain finality. Aside from her mere assertions, Tablante likewise failed to showed that there are exceptional and equitable considerations which will warrant the relaxation of the aforementioned procedural rule. Hence, the CA correctly dismissed her petition for being an improper remedy. Ultimately, even disregarding Tablante's procedural lapses, the Court finds no cogent reason to overturn the findings of the RTC in finding that petitioner failed to substantiate the grounds which will warrant the conduct of a new trial.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-29.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi; rollo, pp. 30-33.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi; id. at 34-35.
4.Id. at 99-106.
5.Yalong v. People, 716 Phil. 657, 664 (2013).
6.Villalon v. Lirio, 765 Phil. 474, 481 (2015).
7. Penned by Presiding Judge Monique A. Quisumbing-Ignacio; rollo, pp. 107-111.
8.Id. at 66.