Evaluación actividades recreativas y educación ambiental

a. Verified petition within 15 days from notice of decision, final order of resolution or denial of MNT or MR. (Secs. 1 & 2)

On motion duly filed and served, with payment of full amount of docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs before expiration of reglementary period extension of 30 days only for justifiable reasons.

b. Docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs (Sec. 3) c. Proof of service on lower court and adverse party (Id.)

2. Only questions of law may be raised (Sec. 1)

a. Question of law when there is doubt or difference of opinion as to what the law is on a certain state of facts and which do not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties.

Exc. Petitions for review of decisions of RTC, Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan in petitions for

writs of amparo or habeas data, and of the Court of Appeals in petitions for writ of kalikasan, may raise questions of fact.

3. Dismissal or denial of petition (Sec. 5)

Dismissal failure of petitioner to comply with requirements of Sec. 4 regarding

payment of docket and other lawful fees deposit for costs

proof of service of petition

contents of and documents which should accompany petition shall be SUFFICIENT GROUND for dismissal thereof

patently without merit

prosecuted manifestly for delay

questions raised too unsubstantial to require consideration

4. When petition given due course (Sec. 6)

When court a quo

1. has decided a question of substance not therefore determined by SC, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with applicable decisions of SC

2. has so far departed from accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by the lower court, as to call for the power of supervision.

SC may review matters not specifically raised.

Once accepted by SC, THROWS ENTIRE CASE OPEN TO REVIEW.

5. Distinguished from certiorari as a special civil action As mode of appeal

appellate or superior court has jurisdiction over subject matter and persons of the parties and can only review errors of judgment, i.e., questions or errors of law decided or committed by lower court

appeal or continuation of the case either from CA, SB or CTA, or RTC

parties are the same, appellant being the petitioner and appellee, the respondent

appellate court renders its own decision affirming, reversing or modifying judgment or order appealed from

As special civil action

superior court can only review errors of jurisdiction, i.e., acts of respondent done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

original or independent action, where inferior court, board or officer is made respondent, together with person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the inferior court

court cannot reverse inferior court’s decision and render a contrary one, but can only annul or modify act complained of and all proceedings flowing therefrom

6. Petition for Review under Rule 45 and special civil action under Rule 65 mutually exclusive

These remedies are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Where the first is available, the second cannot be resorted to.

Special civil action under Rule 65 may not be allowed as a substitute for failure to file petition under Rule 45 (Linzag vs. CA, 291 SCRA 304 [1998]).

However, in the interest of justice, SC may consider petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as a

petition for review under Rule 45, provided latter is filed within the required period (Banco

Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. CA, 334 SCRA 305 [2000]).

Petition for review under Rule 45 may be treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in the interest of substantial justice. Dismissal of appeal purely on technical grounds is frowned

upon where the policy of the courts is to encourage hearing of appeals on the merits. The rules of procedure ought not to applied in a very rigid technical sense, as they are used only to help, not override, substantial justice.

The strict application of procedural technicalities should not hinder the speedy disposition of the case on the merits (Ramiscal vs. Sandiganbayan, 446 SCRA 166 [2004]). Callejo

Petition for review can be considered as a petition for certiorari, in the interest of justice.

Petitioner came to know of the judgment by default after it was promulgated by the trial court while appeal was still available. In fact, she filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. What she should have done was to file an ordinary appeal with the Court of Appeals. Instead, she came directly to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari. However, in the interest of justice, we consider the instant petition, pro hac vice, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, it appearing that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the judgment by default. (Tan vs. Dumarpa, 438 SCRA 659 [2004])

Petitioner cannot file an alternative petition, i.e., delegating to the Supreme Court the task of determining under which rule the petition should fall- petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 or certiorari under Rule 65. In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy

and adequate remedy. Petitioner should have filed a petition for review. Under Rule 56, Section 5 (f) , a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, as in this case, merits an outright dismissal. (Chua vs. Santos, 440 SCRA 365 [2004]) Callejo

Petition for review on certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals decision denying a petition for certiorari. Since petitioner filed instead a petition for relief from judgment, the CA decision became final. After the CA denied his petition for relief from

judgment, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court seeking a reversal and setting aside of both CA decisions. Futile because of the finality of the earlier decision and the fact that a petition for certiorari, not a petition for review, is the correct remedy against a denial of a petition for relief from judgment (Section 1 (b) , Rule 41) (Azucena vs. Foreign Manpower Services, Inc. 441 SCRA 346 [2004]). Carpio Morales

Motion for reconsideration not a sine qua non for filing of a petition for review under Rule 45.

We do not agree with the contention of respondent that a motion for reconsideration ought to have been filed before the filing of the instant petition (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hantex Trading Co., Inc., 454 SCRA 301 [2005]). Callejo)

7. Factual findings of CA binding on SC. 11 Exceptions:

(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;

(d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;

(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) When the CAs findings are contrary to those by the trial court;

(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

(i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;

(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or

(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion(Abalos

vs. Torio, G.R. No. 175444, December 14, 2011)

Additional exception:

Those filed under writs of amparo, habeas data, or kalikasan.

Judicial Courtesy

Rule of judicial courtesy, meaning holding in abeyance the execution of a judgment because of a pending petition for certiorari with the higher court, even without the issuance of a temporary restraining order. In Eternal Garderns Memorial Corp. vs. CA (164 SCRA 421 [1988]) , the role of

judicial courtesy would apply ONLY if there is a string probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered MOOT AND MORIBUND as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court.

e. Issues to be raised on appeal

Errors of judgment committed by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the persons of the parties.

f. Period of appeal

Period of time to appeal must be strictly enforced on considerations of public policy. The period is mandatory and jurisdictional (Government Service Insurance System v. Gines, G.R. No. 85273, March 9, 1993, 219 SCRA 724.) and the failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory that deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less to entertain the appeal (De Castro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, No. L 36021, February 29, 1988, 158 SCRA 288.) or motion for new trial. (Velasco v. Ortiz, G.R. No. 51973, April 16, 1990, 184 SCRA 303) The decision of the Court of Appeals after expiration of the period to appeal is null and void. (Antonio v. Court of Appeals, No. L 77656, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 592.)

g. Perfection of appeal

Rule 41, Sec. 9

A party’s appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.

A party’s appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.

In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.

Effect of Perfection of Appeal

The court which rendered the appealed decision loses its jurisdiction over the case. However,

prior to the transmittal of the original record or record on appeal to the appellate court, it may

still do the following:

1. issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal;

2. approve compromises;

3. permit appeals of indigent parties;

4. order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2, Rule 39; and 5. allow withdrawal of appeal. (Rule 41, Sec. 9) (IAPOA)

Participation of the Solicitor General during appeal

Under Presidential Decree 478, the Solicitor General shall represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.

h. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC Rule 40

i. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC

Rule 41

j. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CA

k. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CTA

Rule 45

l. Review of final judgments or final orders of the COA

Rule 64

m. Review of final judgments or final orders of the COMELEC

Rule 64

n. Review of final judgments or final orders of the CSC

Rule 43

o. Review of final judgments or final orders of the Ombudsman

Rule 43

p. Review of final judgments or final orders of the NLRC

Rule 65

q. Review of final judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies

Rule 43

Dismissal, Reinstatement and Withdrawal of Appeal Dismissal of Appeal

Court of Appeals Rule 50