Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

FIFTEENTH DIVISION

ARNEL GACUTAN, ATTY. CA - G.R. SP No. 166828

MICHAEL D. PECSON,
ROLANDO DE GUZMAN,
SAMUEL MOTOL,
GIUSEPPE CABELLON,
JORGE BALGOS,
SERAPIO BURGOS, JR.,
CELSO AGUSTIN,
REGINALD DE LEON, and Members:
ERWIN VICTOLERO,
GARCIA-FERNANDEZ,
Petitioners, M. V., Chairperson,
ROXAS, R. R. G., and
- versus - *PASCUA, B.S.,,JJ..

THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE
HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
ADJUDICATION
COMMISSION, CARMELO
B. MARQUEZ, MA. LUISA
DULDULAO, JANET
TAYAG-ONG, LEONARDO
LOPEZ, MA. TERESA
MONCUPA, DENNIS OMAR Promulgated:
T. SALVO, ESTILITA
TIRONA, and GERRY 25 JANUARY 2021
TOPACIO,

Respondents.

* Per Office Order No. 01-21-RSF.

CA-G.R. SP No. 166828 Page 2 of 3
Resolution

RESOLUTION
ROXAS, J.:

The instant petition for certiorari seeks the reversal of the 25

December 2020 Decision rendered by the Board of Commissioners of
the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission.

The petition is doomed to fail.

Section 36 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of

Republic Act No. 11201, or the Department of Human Settlements and
Urban Development Act, categorically provides that the decision of the
Human Settlements Adjudication Commission upon any disputed
matter may only be brought to the Court of Appeals in accordance with
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioners having availed of the remedy of certiorari under Rule

65, instead of appeal under Rule 43, a dismissal of the petition is thus
in order. Stress is laid that, as a condition for the filing of a petition for
certiorari, there must be no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy available in the ordinary course of law.1

Lest it be forgotten, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is a

prerogative writ that is never issued as a matter of right. Hence, the
party availing thereof must strictly observe the rules laid down and
non-observance thereof may not be brushed aside as mere technicality.
Accordingly, where an appeal is available, such as in this case,
certiorari will not prosper even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of
discretion.2

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.

Respondents' motion to dismiss is merely noted.

SO ORDERED.

Original Signed
RUBEN REYNALDO G. ROXAS
Associate Justice
1 Section 1, Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court.
2 Abadilla, Jr., et al. v. Obrero, et al., G.R. No. 210855, December 9, 2015.
CA-G.R. SP No. 166828 Page 3 of 3
Resolution

WE CONCUR:

Original Signed
MYRA V. GARCIA-FERNANDEZ
Associate Justice

Original Signed
BONIFACIO S. PASCUA
Associate Justice