ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136104. August 30, 1999]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated AUG 30, 1999.

G.R. No. 136104 (Primitivo Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, Apolinario B. Santos, RTC Judge, Pasig City, Branch 67 and Ricardo Papa Jr., Manuel Albay, Arturo Cajucom and Gary Lising.)

Petitioner challenges the Resolution of the Court of Appeals promulgated August 19, 1998, as well as the Resolution promulgated November 6, 1998 denying reconsideration. The first assailed Resolution dismissed the petitioner's action for certiorari on the ground that it "cannot be a substitute for appeal, more so, for a lost appeal."

In the CA, petitioner contested the "Omnibus Order" dated November 25, 1997 issued by the RTC of the National Capital Judicial Region issued by the RTC of the National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 67, Pasig City, which dismissed his Complaint; as well as the Order dated July 15, 1998 denying his Motion for Reconsideration. Clearly, the Order of dismissal was a final disposition that can be contested only in an ordinary appeal not in a petitioner for certiorari or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

In his Comment, petitioner insists that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his Complaint. Assuming arguendo that this contention is accepted, private respondents are equally correct in their Reply that certiorari is proper only where appeal was not available.

Obviously, certiorari was used by petitioner because the period for filing a regular appeal had lapsed.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for review is hereby DENIED for failure of petitioner to show that the CA committed a reversible error. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.