ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136909. June 16, 1999]

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS. INC. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 16, 1999.

G.R. No. 136909 (Radio Communications of the Phils. Inc. vs. CA, et al.)

In a resolution dated February 15, 1999, the Court resolved to dismiss the instant petition for review on certiorari for the petitioner's failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly for the defective or insufficient certification against forum shopping in that it is not made by the principal party or petitioner itself, in violation of Sec. 5, Rule 7.

In an Omnibus Motion filed with this Court on March 25, 1999, the petitioner asks for the Court's reconsideration of the dismissal without citing any reason for such defective certification against forum shopping. For failure to cite any compelling reason to justify us to overlook the technical lapses of the petition, the petition should be dismissed.

Nonetheless, after a careful perusal of the petition and the annexes, the Court does not find any merit in the instant petition. The Court does not find any reversible error on the part of the respondent Court of Appeals.

As antecedents, Civil case No. 93-5924 for damages was filed against herein petitioner before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53 of Sorsogon, by private respondents. After presentation of evidence by private respondents, petitioner filed a "Motion for Judgment on Demurer to Evidence," which was denied by the lower court. A Motion for reconsideration was likewise filed and denied.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the ground that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's "Motion for Judgment on Demurer to Evidence." In the assailed decision before this Court, the appellate court denied said petition and ruled that:

Here, what the petitioner wants us to do is precisely what the Supreme Court declares and considers as improper in a proceeding for certiorari. For, in the ultimate analysis, petitioner wants Us to overturn the respondents judge's appreciation of the evidence before him and substitute it with another finding hewed along the petitioner's thinking. This cannot be done in a petition for certiorari. An doubly must this be so in the present case because the Rules permit resort to certiorari only when there is "no appeal", or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" (Rule 65, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). Undoubtedly, the remedy of appeal is very much available to the petitioner at the opportune time, the existence of which simply precludes availment of the high prerogative of writ of certiorari (Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 75). For sure it has been held that appeal in the ordinary course of law, not certiorari is the proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash or demurrer to evidence (Gamboa vs. Cruz, 162 SCRA 645).

xxx

We have carefully gone over the petition filed in this case and nowhere can be found therein any allegation that the denial by the respondent judge of petitioner's demurrer to evidence was actuated by any of the considerations which would characterized the action taken as a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge is solely predicated on the inability of the same respondent to appreciate the evidence before him in the manner petitioner views them. Certainly, the circumstance alone that a judge's evaluation of the evidence differs from a litigant's assessment of the same, cannot, under any standard, be taken as grave abuse of discretion on the part of the evaluating magistrate. 1 [Rollo, p. 273-274.]

This Court is of the opinion that the abovequoted decision is in accord with the existing law and jurisprudence and we see no reversible error as to warrant us to reinstate and give due course to the petition.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration with FINALITY.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE