FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231114. November 20, 2017.]
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows: aDSIHc
"G.R. No. 231114 (Union Bank of the Philippines v. Ruby Industrial Corporation). — The petitioner is required to SUBMIT within five (5) days from notice hereof, a soft copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
Before us is a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review and a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The petition assails the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 and Resolution 2 in CA G.R. SP No. 130945. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64 (RTC), when the latter granted respondent's motion for execution.
Based on a careful review of the arguments presented, the Court grants the motion, but denies the petition. Petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision and Resolution that would warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The execution of a judgment or order shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal, if no appeal has been duly perfected. 3 Petitioner did not appeal from the RTC Decision dated 2 September 2010. 4 It was ordered in that ruling to turn over to respondent any and all amounts that the former had received from Tanduay Distillery, Inc. Thus, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for the turnover.
Furthermore, as correctly observed by the CA, the allegations of grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the RTC Orders dated 15 October 2012 5 and 25 June 2013, 6 which granted the motion for execution, were a flimsy excuse to justify the petition for certiorari before the CA. The remedy of certiorari was used merely as a substitute for appeal to attack the merits of the RTC Decision dated 2 September 2010, which had already become final and executory as to petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-41. The Decision dated 7 October 2016 was penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
2.Id. at 42-44; dated 24 March 2017.
3. Rules of Court, Rule 39, Section 1.
4.Rollo, pp. 75-79.
5.Id. at 99-101.
6.Id. at 102-106.