ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 142688. September 25, 2000]

SEABOARD - EASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 25 2000.

G.R. No. 142688 (Seaboard - Eastern Insurance Company, Inc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, People's Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc.)

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 24, 1997, June 5, 1997, and February 10, 2000, dismissing its appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 146, Makati City, in Civil Case No. 93-3236.

In its resolution of June 26, 2000, this Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that: (1) the petition was filed out of time; (2) the docket and other legal fees and deposit for costs were also paid out of time; and (3) the certification of non-forum shopping was not signed by a duly authorized officer of petitioner but only by its counsel.

Petitioner moves for reconsideration. It alleges that since it received a copy of the February 10, 2000 resolution of the Court of Appeals on February 21, 2000, the reglementary period of sixty days within which to file the petition expired on April 21, 2000, which fell on a Good Friday, a legal holiday, and, in accordance with Rule 21, �1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it had until the next working day, April 24, 2000, within which to file the petition. Thus, its filing of the present petition and the payment of the docketing fees on April 24, 2000 were both made within the reglementary period.

Petitioner's explanation, though satisfactory, still leaves unaccounted for the fact that it failed to explain why its certification of non-forum shopping was not signed by a duly authorized officer of the corporation. Rule 46, �3 requires such sworn certification to be signed by petitioner itself.

In addition, petitioner's choice of remedy is inappropriate. As its appeal was dismissed, petitioner should have brought this matter to this Court by means of a petition for review under Rule 45.

Even if the present petition is now treated as a petition for review, it must nonetheless be dismissed for having been filed late. It appears that the challenged resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner's appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court was received by petitioner on April 3, 1997; that on April 10, 1997, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration; and that the aforesaid motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in a resolution dated June 5, 1997, a copy of which was received by petitioner on June 19, 1997. Accordingly, the last day for appealing the resolutions of the Court of Appeals denying petitioner's appeal and denying reconsideration was on July 4, 1997. Consequently, this petition, which was filed on April 24, 2000, was filed late.

The extraordinary remedy of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. For a prime specification of the writ of certiorari is that it lies only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, appeal was available but was lost by petitioner through default.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED with FINALITY.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE