Tolentino v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 235994. March 5, 2018.]

ATTY. JENAIDA M. TOLENTINO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND CRISANTO M. CALZADO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 March 2018which reads as follows: HESIcT

"G.R. No. 235994 (Atty. Jenaida M. Tolentino v. People of the Philippines and Crisanto M. Calzado)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the May 31, 2017 1 and December 7, 2017 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149633 for failure of petitioner Atty. Jenaida M. Tolentino (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in ruling that: (a) petitioner filed the wrong mode of appeal before it; and (b) the petition for certiorari dated September 14, 2015 remains dismissible.

As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner should have filed a notice of appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court (Rules), and not a petition for review under Rule 42 of the same Rules, considering that the assailed resolution — which essentially involves the denial of the petition for certiorari dated September 14, 2015 — was rendered in the exercise of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 59's original jurisdiction. 3 Moreover, the CA correctly held that the said certiorari petition remains dismissible, given that: (a) a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order is a prohibited pleading under the Rules on Summary Procedure; 4(b) the denial of a motion to quash is not appealable, and thus, could not be the subject of a petition for certiorari in light of the other available legal remedies; 5 and (c) petitioner failed to file the requisite motion for reconsideration, which was a condition sine qua non for the filing of the petition for certiorari. 6

Meanwhile, the other issues raised in this case, being factual in nature, are beyond the province of a Rule 45 petition. It is settled that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal, absent any of the exceptions laid down by jurisprudence. 7

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 151-158. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino concurring.

2.Id. at 160-162. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring.

3. See BF Citiland Corporation v. Otake, 640 Phil. 261, 268 (2010).

4. Pertinent provisions of Section 19 of the Rules on Summary Procedure reads:

   SEC. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:

xxx xxx xxx

   (g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court.

5. The Court held that the remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the movant accused to enter a plea, go to trial, and should the decision be adverse, reiterate on appeal from the final judgment and assign as error the denial of the motion to quash, Enrile v. Manalastas, 746 Phil. 43, 48 (2014).

6. See Supapo v. Spouses De Jesus, 758 Phil. 444, 451 (2015).

7. See Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citation omitted.