K&G Mining Corporation vs. Acoje Mining Company, Incorporated, et al.

G.R. No. 188364, February 11, 2015,

Third Division, Reyes.

K&G Mining Corporation (KGMC) filed a Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition
for Certiorari. CA denied extension for the reason that decisions of the MAB are
appealable via a petition for review under Rule 43 and not by way for certiorari
under Rule 65. KGMC filed an MR and to Admit Petition, CA denied. Is the CA correct
in not granting due course to the petition of KGMC?

Yes. The attempt to resuscitate the lost appeal by filing a Petition for Extension of
Time to File Petition for Certiorari was likewise ineffective. The special civil action for
certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. It lies only
where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. It cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a
judgment despite the availability of that remedy. Certiorari is not and cannot be
made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost
through fault or negligence.