ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142677-78. May 10, 2000]

MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, et al. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 10 2000.

G.R. No. 142677-78 (Mapua Institute of Technology, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

Petitioners have brought this petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assigning grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of Appeals and alleging that there is no appeal, nor any speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petition was filed on April 24, 2000, thirty-five (35) days after their receipt of the assailed Resolution, denying their Motion for Reconsideration, on March 20, 2000. Essentially, petitioners question the Court of Appeals' decision which upheld the NLRC's award to private respondents, employees of petitioner Mapua Institute of Technology, of their 70% proportionate share in the proceeds of tuition fee increases charged by the school pursuant to R.A. 6728. Upon closer scrutiny, however, it appears that inasmuch as the assailed decision and resolution were rendered by the Court of Appeals, there was a remedy available to petitioners, i.e., a petition for review under Rule 45, to be filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution which denied their motion for reconsideration. As it stands, therefore, their present petition was filed out of time. Where appeal is available as a remedy, certiorari will not lie (heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario, 304 SCRA 18 [1999]). A special civil action for certiorari is not and can not be made a substitute for appeal or a lapsed appeal (Government Service Insurance System v. Olisa, 304 SCRA 421 [1999]).

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE