ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138951. July 26, 1999]

SPS. TUBALE vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 26, 1999.

G.R. No. 138951 (Spouses Edmundo and Marylyn Tubale vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the petition for being a wrong remedy under the Rules, the proper recourse being a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, and for failure to sufficiently show that the questioned judgment is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

At any rate, even if the petition were treated as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the aforesaid Rules, the same would nevertheless be denied for lack of sufficient showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in its questioned judgment as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE