FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241681. December 3, 2018.]
WORLD SPICES INTERNATIONAL CUISINE, INC., petitioner, vs.BRENTON INTERNATIONAL VENTURE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 3, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241681 — World Spices International Cuisine, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Brenton International Venture Manufacturing Corporation, Respondent.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file its Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, arguments, and issues in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Resolutions dated September 29, 2017 and August 29, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 151028. On the contrary, both CA Resolutions are in accord with the facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence.
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (ROC) provides that a petition for certiorari may be filed when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." We have consistently ruled that a motion for reconsideration is the adequate remedy referred to in Rule 65. As such, the CA correctly ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari can be filed. While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, petitioner failed to show that the instant case falls within the exceptions. In fact, petitioner merely stated that it was deprived of due process of law without establishing any concrete, compelling, and valid reasons for dispensing with the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Time and again, the Court has always held that a petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. A petitioner may not unilaterally disregard procedural requirements on its bare and self-serving statement that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is unnecessary. aTHCSE
Moreover, it must be stressed that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy when it filed a Motion to Set Aside Decision and Entry of Judgment and to Reopen the Case dated August 22, 2016 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 88. Petitioner sought to set aside the RTC's Decision dated July 24, 2015, which was more than a year before petitioner filed its motion. Rule 37 of the ROC provides:
Within the period of taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights; or
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, an aggrieved party who seeks to set aside a judgment or final order must file a motion for new trial within the period for taking an appeal or 15 days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. In this case, petitioner filed its Motion to Set Aside Decision and Entry of Judgment and to Reopen the Case only on August 22, 2016, at which point the decision sought to be set aside had already attained finality.
Neither can petitioner seek refuge in Rule 38 of the ROC on petition for relief from judgment since what petitioner filed before the RTC was a mere Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution with Motion to Set Aside Decision and Entry of Judgment and to Reopen the Case. The remedy under Rule 38 must be commenced through a verified petition and not by a mere motion. Further, the said petition must be filed within 60 days after petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the September 29, 2017 Resolution and August 29, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 151028. cAaDHT
Honorable Rosanna Fe Romero-Maglaya, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Quezon City, is DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court