FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239417. March 13, 2019.]
DR. NOEL N. VELASCO AND DR. FERDINAND S. AGUSTIN, petitioners, vs.SANTOS PRE ANG AND ERIC MODESTO WONG ANG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239417 (Dr. Noel N. Velasco and Dr. Ferdinand S. Agustin v. Santos Pre Ang and Eric Modesto Wong Ang)
After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its January 30, 2018 1 and May 16, 2018 2 Resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 154219, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
As correctly ruled by the CA, an order denying a motion to dismiss, which is an interlocutory order, is not reviewable by certiorari. 3 As an exception, however, parties may avail of the special civil action of certiorari if appropriate and compliant with the stringent requirements of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 4Certiorari is proper only for questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 5 The orders of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Board of Dentistry, which denied Dr. Noel N. Velasco and Dr. Ferdinand S. Agustin's (petitioners) motion to dismiss, were interlocutory orders. Such orders did not finally dispose of the case because the PRC Board of Dentistry still has to determine whether petitioners committed the administrative violations as charged. In availing of the remedy of certiorari, petitioners have the burden of proving that the orders of the PRC Board of Dentistry were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioners miserably failed to discharge such burden. Under Section 6 (k), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9484, the PRC Board of Dentistry has jurisdiction to hear and investigate any violations of R.A. No. 9484, as in this case. The complaint filed by Santos Pre Ang and Eric Modesto Wong Ang (respondents) was administrative in nature, i.e., petitioners committed unprofessional and dishonorable conduct; thus, it was treated as such by the PRC Board of Dentistry. The acts alleged by respondents as violations of Section 33 of R.A. No. 9484, which imposes the penalties of imprisonment and fines, merely served as basis for the administrative sanctions sought by respondents against petitioners. Thus, the denial of petitioners' motion to dismiss was not attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January 30, 2018 and May 16, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154219 are AFFIRMED.
The petitioners' compliance with the Resolution dated July 30, 2018, remitting the payment in the amount of P1,300 for the prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 55-57; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
2.Id. at 58-59.
3.Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corporation v. Ting Guan Trading Corporation, 731 Phil. 446, 459 (2014).
4.Leviste Management System, Inc. v. Legaspi Towers 200, Inc., G.R. No. 199353, April 4, 2018.
5. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 1.