G.R. No. 193374 - HEIRS OF THE LATE GERRY* ECARMA, NAMELY: AVELINA SUIZA-ECARMA, DENNIS ECARMA, JERRY LYN ECARMA PENA, ANTONIO ECARMA AND NATALIA ECARMA SANGALANG, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND RENATO A. ECARMA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. [10] Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of their appeal, attaching a Supplemental Appellants' Brief [11] to their motion. However, the appellate court again deemed the Supplemental Appellants' Brief to be unsatisfactory and non-compliant with the rules and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration: Notably, the new appeal brief, just like the original one, does not contain reference to the relevant portions of the record pertaining to its statement of facts. Further, the subject index does not contain a summary of arguments and reference to the specific pages of the brief, and the supporting laws and authorities. [12] From that denial, petitioners filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court almost sixty (60) days from the time they received the appellate court's denial of their motion for reconsideration. At the outset, we see through petitioners' obvious ploy to avoid the necessary consequence of their failure to file, within the required fifteen-day period, the correct remedy of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 [13] of the Rules of Court, from the assailed ruling of the CA. On this score alone, the present petition should have been dismissed outright. Petitioners simple allegation of grave abuse of discretion in the CA's dismissal of their appeal cannot substitute for the correct remedy of a lost appeal. [14] Notably, as they have stubbornly done so in the appellate court, petitioners urge us to reverse these adverse rulings of the appellate court without abiding by the rules therefor. First . An appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is different from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 thereof. A special civil action for certiorari may be availed of only if the lower tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 5 Simply imputing in a petition that the ruling sought to be reviewed is tainted with grave abuse of discretion does not magically transform a petition into a special civil action for certiorari. The appellate court's outright dismissal of therein appellants' appeal was a final order which left it with nothing more to do to resolve the case. [16] That disposition is a final and executory order, appealable to, and may be questioned before, this Court by persons aggrieved thereby, such as herein petitioners, via Rule 45. Moreover, the dismissal of therein appellants', herein petitioners', appeal before the CA is expressly allowed by Section 1(f), [17] Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. The appellate court, therefore, cannot be charged with grave abuse of discretion as there is no showing that, in the exercise of its judgment, it acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Absent grav