MARIO S. TAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TANAUAN, PROVINCE OF BATANGAS, AND JOSE P. LAUREL FINANCE & LEASING, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Before this Court is a petition for certiorari (Rollo, pp. 3-13) under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which seeks to annul the Decision dated June 28, 2013 of the public respondent Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 6 its subsequent Order dated January 13, 2014 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

A perusal of the petition, however, reveals that the petition is fatally defective on the following grounds:

1. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the wrong mode to question a final order or resolution. Certiorari will only lie if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the case at bar, the assailed Decision having been rendered by the public respondent Regional Trial Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the petitioner’s proper remedy should have been a petition for review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. The petition, which is to be treated as a Petition for Review was filed out of time. Since the petitioner alleged that the copy of the public respondent RTC’s Order dated January 13, 2013 was received by their counsel on January 20, 2014, the appeal should have been filed within the 15-day reglementary period which expired on February 4, 2014. It must be noted that the instant petition was filed only on March 21, 2014.
3. The Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Service (Rollo, pp. 14-15) were improperly notarized as the same contained defective jurats as the Notary Public before whom both documents were subscribed and sworn to failed to indicate his notarial commission number and his office address as prescribed by Section 2 (b) and (c) of Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and
4. The petitioner failed to attach copies of material portions of the records which are relevant, pertinent and necessary to support the allegations in the petition, such as the entire legible and duplicate copies of the records of appealed Criminal Case No. 11-07-5667, inclusive of oral and documentary evidence.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Inting and Galapate-Laguilles,^[*] JJ., concur.

---

^[*] Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 177-14-RDC dated May 2, 2014.