Instrumento: Matriz

RTC to SC

Petition for review on certiorari or appeal by certiorari to the SC where judgment was rendered by the court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction raising only questions of law.

CA to SC

Petition for review on certiorari or appeal by certiorari raising questions of law.

Ordinary appeal

Bance|Benitez|Castañares|Flor Pacamalan|Piquero| Ratilla, (b) RTC to CA - in the exercise of its

original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

RTC to CA – in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be made by filing a verified petition for review with the CA, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the RTC and the adverse party with a copy of the petition.

RTC to SC/CA to SC – shall be made by filing a verified petition with the SC within the reglementary period

( c ) On or before 30 August 1991, or fifteen days from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration but where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days from notice of judgment or final order.

Sec.3, Rule 41; Sec. 1, Rule 42; Sec. 2 Rule 45, ROC; Riano (1) 664, 667, 685 Rule 41, Sec. 2; Riano (1) 661 Rule 41, Sec. 2[a]; Riano (1) 664 Rule 42, Sec. 1; Riano (1) 668 Rule 41, Sec. 3; Rule 42, Sec. 1; Rule 45, Sec. 2; Riano (1) 664, 667, 685 Alternative answer:

a) The mode of appeal of the case decided by the CA is an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court under rule 45. If the decision of the RTC is from the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the mode is a notice of review under Rule 41.

If the decision of the RTC is in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction, the mode is petition for review in accordance with Rule 42. In all case where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.

b) Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is perfected by filing verified a petition for review on certiorari and by paying the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for cost.

Proof of service of a copy thereof on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition.

An ordinary appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal and by paying to the clerk of court which rendered the decision of final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. A record of appeal

should also be filed together with a notice of appeal when required by the Rules of Court. A petition for review under Rule 42 is perfected by filing a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition.

c) The period for appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, or within 15 days from notice of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trail or motion for reconsideration filed in due time.

The ordinary appeal under Rule 41 shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellants shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal Within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order. " However, on appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken within 48 hours from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. The petition for review under Rule 42 shall be filed and served within 15 days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment.

Rule 41 Sec 2, Sec 3, Sec 4. Rule 42 Sec 1, Rule 45 Sec 1, Sec 2, Sec 3, Sec 5 On what grounds may the trial court dismiss an appeal taken from its decision?

Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may, muto proprio or on motion, dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of time or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period.

Rule 41, sec. 13 as amended A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, effective 01 May 2000) An appellant in a civil case pending in the CA filed a motion for the reception of specified evidence for the purpose of clarifying facts already in the record in order that the CA would be better able to resolve relevant factual issues raised in the appeal. Will the motion prosper? Why?

Yes. Under Section 15, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new trial, he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties.

Bance|Benitez|Castañares|Flor Pacamalan|Piquero| Ratilla, Rule 44, Section 15

In an action for unlawful detainer by P against D in the MTC, judgment was rendered against D ordering him to yield the premises to P. On D’s timely appeal to the RTC, the latter found that he had been unlawfully withholding possession of the premises for more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint and that therefore the proper action was accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer, and the RTC thereby declared the MTC without jurisdiction over the case and nullified the proceedings therein. Now, P filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA against this RTC decision. How should the CA resolve the certiorari petition?

The CA should dismiss the certiorari petition.

The RTC made an error of judgment not an error in jurisdiction to warrant a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

A distinction must be made between errors of judgment and errors of jurisdiction. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error in jurisdiction renders an order or judgment void or voidable. Errors of jurisdiction are reviewable on certiorari, errors of judgment, only by appeal.

Defendant, who was served the MTC's adverse judgment in an ejectment case on 01 June 2000 moved on 03 June 2000 for reconsideration of this adverse decision.

The MTC's order denying the motion for reconsideration was served on defendant on 20 June 2000. Then, on 27 June 2000, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the ejectment decision to the RTC. Is the appeal timely filed?

No.

The ejectment decision having presumably been rendered by the MTC under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. So, the filing of this motion did not suspend or toll the running of the period for finality of the ejectment decision which thus became final on 16 June 2000.

1991 revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Sec. 19 [c]

Does an appeal from a final judgment of the RTC stay the enforcement of this judgment?

Yes.

Except in civil cases decided under the Rule on Summary Procedure, the appeal as a rule, shall stay the judgment or final order, unless the CA, the law or the rules shall provide otherwise.

Rule 42, Sec. 8[b]; Riano (1) 670

A sued B in RTC-Manila for breach of contract. B filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Before the motion to dismiss was resolved, A filed an amended complaint. The RTC did not admit amended complaint, ruling that A failed to obtain leave of court. A's motion for reconsideration was denied; so, he filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. B moves to dismiss the petition contending that the CA has no jurisdiction to issue certiorari, since only a question of law is involved. Is the RTC judge correct?

Does the CA have jurisdiction to issue certiorari? Decide.

Is the review by the SC of the decision of the CA a matter of right? Under what circumstances will the SC review the said decision.

No, review by the SC is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion.

The Rules provide that it will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:

(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or

(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.

Rule on Summary Procedure

Rule 45

Petition for Certiorari Rule 65

Bance|Benitez|Castañares|Flor Pacamalan|Piquero| Ratilla, By what mode can a party seek the review

of an order denying his petition for relief from judgment?

Only by an appropriate special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, and not by an appeal.

What should the CA do to an appeal by notice of appeal from the RTC to it when the appellant raises issues of law only, or to an appeal by notice of appeal from a judgment of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction?

An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the RTC to the CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court.

Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a RTC shall be dismissed. An appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.

Rule 50, Sec. 2; Riano (1) 665-666 When can you file petition for relief?

It can be filed when a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence or when a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal.

Rule 38, Sec 1, Sec 2 Rules of Court