REDEL S. SADIASA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. TITA BUGHAO ALISUAG, CHINESE GROCERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY SHERLAND M. SANTILLAN, ROMUALDO DELA CRUZ, ROMEO D. CORNITO AND THE REGIS…
DICDICAN, J.:
For one, it has not validly alleged a specific act or
acts which constitute grave abuse of discretion committed by the
respondent judge. What the petitioner has set forth in the petition as
an act allegedly constituting grave abuse of discretion is the issuance
by the respondent judge of an order on October 12, 2013 denying due
course to his appeal from an order issued by the said judge on July 4,
2013 denying his motion for reconsideration of the order issued on April
10, 2013 which denied his motion for leave to intervene in Civil Case
No. 11-126301. Such an act of the respondent judge does not constitute
grave abuse of discretion. He acted correctly and in accordance with
the Rules of Court in denying due course to the petitioner’s appeal
because Section 9 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court is very explicit in
stating that an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not
appealable, the remedy being an appeal from the judgment or final order.
So, the allegation set forth by the petitioner in his petition that
the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying due
course to his notice of appeal is a mere conclusion without any factual
basis. Thus, we cannot give it an imprimatur for being a mere
conjecture or surmise. As we already know, the sea of conjectures or
surmises has no shore and a court that will embark on it is without
rudder or compass.
Of course, the petitioner tried to allege in his petition that
the respondent judge purportedly committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying his motion for leave to intervene in Civil Case No. 11-126301.
However, this is of no moment already because he did not file the
petition within 60 days from his receipt on April 23, 2013 of a copy of
said order denying his motion for intervention. He filed the petition
in this case only on April 8, 2014.
For another, as far
as a cause of action for mandamus is concerned which is also set forth
in the petition, the petitioner has not also validly alleged that the
law or the Rules of Court had imposed upon the respondent judge a duty
to give due course to his appeal or to his motion for intervention. On
the other hand, it appears that the respondent judge is actually given
discretion whether or not to give due course to petitioner’s appeal or
his motion for intervention.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, we hereby DISMISS outright the petition filed in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Elbinias and Paredes, JJ., concur.