Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > April 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 195590 : April 11, 2011] JOSEFA C. REYES V. COURT OF APPEALS, PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION - BOARD OF DENTISTRY, AND DR. HERMINIA P. CHAVEZ :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 April 2011, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 195590 - (Josefa C. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, Professional Regulation Commission - Board of Dentistry, and Dr. Herminia P. Chavez). - This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Resolutions dated 23 September 2010 and 8 February 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 115434, denying petitioner's Motion to File Verified Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

After a careful consideration of the grounds relied upon by petitioner, we find that there is no cogent reason to overturn the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. While we sympathize with petitioner's alleged suffering, we cannot lightly disregard the technical rules of procedure which have been violated by the petitioner in this case, which is the lack of a proper verification under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. These technical rules are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. Rather, they serve to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases, as they are tools designed to promote efficiency and orderliness, as well as to facilitate attainment of justice. It is only in exceptional cases, and this case is not one of them, that the requirements imposed by the Rules of Court may be relaxed.

In any event, the CA properly denied the petition for certiorari  on the ground that there existed an adequate remedy available to petitioner. For the special civil action for certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) the petition must be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.^[1]

Section 1, Article VI of the PRC Rules of Procedure provides that decisions of the Board may be appealed to the PRC within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Should the decision of the PRC be adverse, a party may appeal it to the CA by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. This is clearly a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. There is no showing or allegation in the petition that the appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient, such as would justify a resort to the remedy of certiorari.

Even the grounds relied upon by the Board in dismissing the Complaint of the petitioner finds basis in the PRC Rules of Procedure. Hence, it cannot be said that the assailed Order of the lower tribunal is a patent nullity that would justify the immediate resort to certiorari.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Resolutions dated 23 September 2010 and 8 February 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115434 are hereby AFFIRMED, and the petition is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
  Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission, G.R. No. 144322, 26 February 2007, 514 SCRA 346, 356.