SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242849. January 7, 2019.]
ELVINA TIU OUYANG, AS SUBSTITUTE FOR GAVINA PIAMONTE AND ROSARIO PIAMONTE, petitioner,vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, BRANCH 34 AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242849 (Elvina Tiu Ouyang, as substitute for Gavina Piamonte and Rosario Piamonte v. The Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 34 and the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Toll Regulatory Board)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for violating the doctrine on hierarchy of courts in assailing the July 4, 2018 2 and August 24, 2018 3 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 34 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 3795-2005-C.
The proper recourse of petitioner Elvina Tiu Ouyang (petitioner), as substitute for Gavina Piamonte and Rosario Piamonte, was to file the instant petition with the Court of Appeals (CA). Settled is the rule that resort to this Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. 4 While the Court shares concurrent jurisdiction with the CA for the special civil actions of certiorari and mandamus against an order or decision of the RTC, direct resort to the Court is allowed only upon showing of special, extraordinary or compelling reasons to justify it, 5 none of which were provided by petitioner in this case.
Even assuming that the direct resort to the Court is proper, the petition must still be dismissed because petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying her motion for substitution. 6 As correctly held by the RTC, the Entry of Judgment 7 shows that the decision in the case has acquired finality and is, therefore, unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect. 8 While this rule admits of exceptions, 9 petitioner failed to show that her cause falls under any of them. This notwithstanding, petitioner's interest is adequately protected because as transferee pendente lite, she stands exactly in the shoes of her transferors and is, therefore, bound by any judgment in their favor, 10 as in this case.
Moreover, the petition for mandamus must likewise be DISMISSED because the RTC's grant or denial of a motion for substitution is in the exercise of its discretion. 11 Settled is the rule that mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of discretion of a trial court. 12
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-30.
2.Id. at 43-44. Signed by Presiding Judge Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo.
3.Id. at 59.
4.Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760, 771 (2013).
5. See Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc. v. Riel, 750 Phil. 57, 64-65 (2015).
6.Rollo, pp. 36-39.
7. Dated April 17, 2017; not attached to the rollo.
8. See rollo, p. 43. See also FGU Corporation v. RTC of Makati, 659 Phil. 117, 123 (2011).
9. In Gadrinab v. Salamanca (736 Phil. 279, 293 [2014]), the Court listed the following exceptions: (1) correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
10. See Sanchez v. Mapalad Realty Corporation, 565 Phil. 685, 706 (2007); See also Natalia Realty, Inc. v. CA, 440 Phil. 1, 28 (2002).
11. See Rule 3, Section 19 of the Rules of Court; See also Heirs of Medrano v. De Vera, 641 Phil. 228, 242 (2010), wherein the Court held that "[t]he above provision gives the trial court discretion to allow or disallow the substitution or joinder by the transferee."
12. See Lihaylihay v. Treasurer of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018, citing Sanson v. Barrios, 63 Phil. 198, 203 (1936).