APPELLATE REMEDIES Outline Justice Magdangal M. de Leon I Basic Laws on Appeal a, Constitution ~ Art. Vill, Sec. 5; Art. IX, Sec. 7 b, Rules of Court Rules 40-56 ~- civil actions Rule 122-125 ~ criminal actions c Batas Pambansa Big, 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, effective Aug. 14, 1981) d PD 1606 (|aw creating Sandiganbayan), amended by RA 7975 and RA 8249 e Supreme Court circulars and decisions which effect appellate procedure by refining, amending, and redefining existing rules, or delineating additional ones. f Court of Appeals intemal rules relevant to appeals @) Il Purpose of Appeal To review errors of judgment committed by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the persons of the parties. * Appeal — a resort to superior court for the review of the decision of an inferior court or administrative agency, + Review — to re-examine judicially or administratively, especially, examination of a ‘cause by an appellate court or administrative body. II What Appeal Can Achieve Appellate court may — ° modify or reverse the judgment or final order, or ° remand the case to the court of origin if it finds that further proceedings are necessary. IV. Is Appeal a Matter of Right? + Appesi not a natural right or part of due process, Jinud_wenxhwed sidly asaditul * Mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law granting that right + Appeal as a matter of right ~ right to seek a review by a superior court of judgment on the merits rendered by a trial court * Judgments or final orders of trial courts which can be appealed as a matter of right: ‘+ Judgments or final orders of the MTC, RTC and Family Court in civil cases and special proceedings (Sec. 1, Rule 41; Sec. 1, Rule 109). ‘ Judgments of conviction rendered by a trial court, provided accused not placed in double jeopardy (Sec. 1, Rule 122).* As a general rule, appeal from a decision rendered, by @ cou appellate jurisdiction is not a matter of right. the exercise of its * Discretionary appeal — one which a reviewing court may or may not allow. Example: Sec. 6, Rule 45 ~ review not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion; will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. xy, wt Also, see Sec. 4, Rule 42 and Sec. 8, Rule 43. V. Importance of Electing the Proper or Correct Remedy > Party Iitigant must adopt proper and correct remedy against a judgment or final order. > Policy now strictly enforced that wrong remedy will be quickly rejected and dismissed (SC Circular No. 2-00 dated March 19, 1990 based on Murillo vs. Consul, Undk. No. 9748, Feb. 27, 1990) i 7 1 i oe Fe ald a Ar BOR REE tn > Election of proper remedy depends on whether or not judgment or final order has become final and unappealable. A. Not Yet Final and Unappealable 1. Ordinary Appeal + notice of appeal within period specified + upon errors or questions of fact and law + applies to judgments or final orders > of MTC to RTC (Rule 40) > of RTC to CA (Rule 41) > of RTC to SB (PD 1606, am. by RA 8249) > of RTC to CA (Rule 122, as am. by AM. No. 00-5-03-SC, Oct. 15, 2004) > of SB to SC (P.D. 1606, as am. by RA 8249) = of CA to SC (Rule 124, as am. by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, Oct. 15, 2004) 2. Petition for Review # toCA + from RTC - if judgment to be appealed from is rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction(Rule 42) ago * from quasi-judicial agency (Rule 43) 1am quasi agency (| ) ye ines Det 3. Petition for Review on Certiorari # to SC under Ri hore OAL naw) vecapione * upon Bure questions of la # from RTC, CA, SB or CTA —* sifta Joo ae ‘eee OF bSe teebore Crh B. Final and Unappealable 1. Petition for Certiorari or special civil action under Rule 65 © ground: judgment rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction 2. Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38 © grounds: fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence3. Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule © grounds: extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction VI. Dismissal of Improper Appeal An appeal may be dismissed on the ground that it is improper. — ‘When a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright. (Catindig vs. Vda, De Meneses, GR. No. 165851, February 2, 2011} Appeal under Rule 41 taken from RTC to CA raising only pure questions of law (Sec. 2, Rule 50), > Trial court without authority to dismiss an appeal by notice of appeal on the ground that issues involved only questions of law (Kho vs, Camacho, 204 SCRA 150; PNB vs. Judge Romillo, Jr., 189 SCRA 320), v Appeal by certiorari from RTC to SC raising questions of fact may be referred by SC to CA for decision or appropriate action (Sec. 6, Rule 56). ‘Appeal from appellate judgment of RTC. taken by notice of appeal to CA ~ proper mode is petition for review under Rule 42, ‘An erroneous appeal does not always result in its dismissal. © Interest of substantial justice (People vs. Barrera, 262 SCRA 63). © Lapse of “slight nature" and esuses no prejudice to any party (People ve, Omotoy, 267 SCRA 143). 0 nefiud we vi at tad ga appa Vil. Orders Not Subject To Appeal ® 1 aaen 8 Order denying motion for new trial or reconsideration. Why be (Deleted by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated December 4, 2007, which took effect on December 27, 2007, governing amendments to Rules 41, 45, 68 and 65) Order denying petition for relief or similar motion seeki ae relief from judgment. F yell en qudment Order denying motion to set aside judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress or any other ground vitiating consent. Interlocutory order. Order disalowing o denying an appeal. ~ andoatnd Order of execution. Judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross claims, and third party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom. Order dismissing an action without prejudice, ORDINARY APPEAL — Rules 40 and 41 OAK ORG cempect or hue Rule 40 - MTC to RTC Rule 41 - RTC to CA Similarities: 1 ‘Same period to appeal ~ 15 days/30 days. Aad 3 -dwhution ef Thea in GA's ponpre it > innpow 4 remedy 64, Rude 3% = * ait “ep fies Ouro # aru cae Re MR2. How appeal taken - notice of appeal/fotice of appeal plus record on appeal ; appellant has only remaining period to file notice of/appeal after denial of motion for reconsideration or new trial. When motion for reconsideratign filed on last day of 15-day period (BPA Data Sytems Corp, vs. CA, 254 SCRA 56). N.B. “Not less than 5 days in any event” rule applies only to filing of answer after denial of motion to dismiss (Rule 16, Sec. 4); denial of motion for bill of particulars or service of BOP (Rule 12, Sec. 5); denial of motion to dismiss in interpleader @ (Rule 62, Sec. 4); and filing of petition for certiorari against COA and COMELEC decisions (Rule 64, Sec. 3), * After denial of motion for reconsideration, appellant, during the remaining period, may file motion for new trial. Period of filing non-extendible (Femandez vs. CA, 458 ‘SCRA 454) «Fresh period of 15 days from denial of, motion 7 reconsideration or new trial (Neypes vs. CA, 469 SCRA 633 [2005]). Aefore he, —> new grew Yoord GI 3. Same manner of perfection (Sec. 9, Rule 41). ws! i C atl OM SET, + In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the co pen the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the 4, other parties. (Ferrer vs, Rabaca, A.M, No, MTJ-05-1880 [Formerly OCAIPINo. 04- gd 1608-MTJ], 2010 October 6, 2010) 0 ( 4, Residual powers (Sec. 9, Rule 41). “9 Msiduol powut of urwd od Oe es i? 5. Power to dismiss appeal (Sec. 13, Rule 41), an ag i sreution wading ET poy + Payment of prescribed docket fees within the prostiiid ise = Sarak jurisdictional, noncompliance with which is fatal to an appeal. Without such payment, the appeal is not perfected (Cu-Unjieng vs. CA, 479 SCRA 594). © Courts should refrain from dismissing the complaint/petition despite the insufficient payment of the required fees except when there is a clear intention to defraud the government and bad faith showing a clear intent to avoid payment of the correct docket fees (David Lu vs. Patemo Lu Ym, Sr., G.R. No. 163690, February 15, 2011) + Non-payment of docket fees within prescribed period — ground for dismissal of an appeal; rules relaxed only for the most persuasive and weighty reasons (Far Corporation vs. Magdaluyo, 443 SCRA 218 [2004)). Difference in pleadings to be filed Rule 40 memoranda mic Are - Ides form weston Rule 41 — briefs Bic -cA US days form wet ‘What to file in special cases (under Rule 41) ~ In appeals from decisions in certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus + memorandum in lieu of brief (Sec. 10, Rule 44). The rules do not provide that non-submission of the copies of the approved record on appeal is a mandatory ground for the dismissal of an appeal. (University of Mindanao, Inc. vs. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 181201, February 21, 2011)Effect of Non-Appeal a opppodiny, (aby Canal ferakil pom founds pel. ® General rule: appeliate court cannot reverse or modity the trial court's judgment involving a party who did not appeal. = Aparty who has not appealed from a Decision cannot seek any relief other than what is provided in the judgment appealed from.( Lao vs. Special Plans, Inc., Respondent., G.R. No. 164791, June 29, 2010) P Exceptions: © solidarity in obligations (Citytrust Banking Corp vs. CA, 196, SCRA 553; Universal Motors Torp. vs. CA, 205 SCRA 448). Mere. ™m oppeot ce inewased slogan hs, itor OR 2. interest of justice (Batingal 45, Av e8y SERA © witicn af Ms mH Oppeat St Owond nev dp paling, “panty PETITION FOR REVIEW — RULES 42 and 43 6d mode oppont) Rule 42 - petition for review of decisions of RTC in exercise of appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by MTC. Rule 42 covers: v © Special Agrarian Court decisions (LBP vs. De Leon, 388 SCRA 537; LBP vs. De Leon, 399 SCRA 376), IN.B. Decisions of RTC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases and criminal cases arising from violations of NIRC, TCC and other laws administered: by BIR and BOC appealable to CTA within 30 days from receipt of decision under procedure analogous to that provided under Rule 42 (RA 9282). | Rule 43 - petition for review of decisions, final orders, resolutions of quasi-judicial agencies such as CSC, SEC, OP, LRA, eto. QuUOM Ur duties - A aqeacits vised ut tot sxclussre, Rule 43 covers: DARAB decisions (Valencia vs. CA, 401 SCRA 666). Voluntary arbitrators (Sevilla Trading Co. vs, AV.A. Tomas E. Semana, et al., 428 SCRA 238). > Ombudsman resolutions or orders i al ca petition for certiorari to SC under Rule 65 (Sec. 14, 2™ par, RA 6770; Lanting vs. Ombudsman, 458 SCRA 93; Garcia Rueda vs. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 769 ). + Decisions of the Beard of Commissioners of the Bureau of is ruuiny setled the issue immigration (Agus Dyikama vs. Domingo, 483 SCRA 748) 1 mn {Brot go w OW bul Os" 1 the remedy in deportes * Decisions and final orders of commercial courts under RA 8799 (AM. No. 04-9-07-SC, Oct. 15, 2004). * CIAC decisions (Metro Construction, Inc. vs. Chatham Properties, Inc., 365 SCRA 697 [2001]; Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. vs. DSM Construction and Development Comp., 424 gora 479 [2004)). ne ipl really fast ‘ag eat fr feally Commepiicated cannes Aw ah ombudsman resolutions or orders in Gdministra ve caBe¥ (Eabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470), Wse* Laguna Lake Development Authority in the exercise of their quasi functions (Public Hearing Committee of The Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. SM Prime Flaldings, Inc., G.R. No, 170599, September 22, 2010) * The remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is to file @ petition for review thereof under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from notice of the resolution, Recourse to petition for certiorari under Rule 65 renders the petition dismissible for being the wrong remedy. (Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Berenguer, GR. No. 154084, March 9, 2010) [N.B. Decisions or rulings of Central Board of Assessment Appeals in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction appealable to CTA under procedure analogous to that in Rule 43 (RA 9282). ] [Exausedlrom Rule 43; 0 4 Judgments and final orders issued unde the Labor Code (Sec. 2) tn Ch under R65 > NLRC decisions (St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494) ~ betiton fg, carton fo CA under ule 65 OKs Secretary ef Labry penned thy Reqplado Conient pradurel Law ‘auny > Decisions of Secretary of Labor (National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, 304 SCRA 407) and Director of BLR (Abbot Laboratories Phils. vs. Abbot Laboratories Employees Union, 323 SCRA 392) — petition for certiorari to CA under Rule 65. + X CTA decisions — petition for ‘eviews der Rule 45 (RA gue ® et Foe feet meted but CHR tw Wer. Ge (]* Decisions of the DO Secretary in petiions ‘ review of alte resolutions - petition for certiorari to CA under Rule 65 (Alcaraz vs. Gonzales, G.R. NO. 164715, September 20, 2006; Santos vs. Go, 473 SCRA 350 [2005]; Public Utilities Dept., Olongapo City vs. Guingona, Jr, 365, SCRA 467 [2001] Bautista vs. CA, 360 SCRA 618 [ 2001) ty the Ck + The remedy of a party desiring to elevate to the appellate court gh adverse resolution of the Secretary of J ‘A Rule 43 petition for reviéw is a wrong mode of appeal.( Barangay Dasmarifias Thru Barangay Captain Ma Encamacion R. Legaspi vs. Creative Play Comer School, G.R. No. 169942, January 24, 2011) N.B. Under DOJ Memorandum Circular No. 58 dated June 30, 1993, the resolution of the DOJ Secretary is appealable administratively to the Office of the President if the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. From the OP, the aggrieved party may file an appeal with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. > Where petition for certiorari was erroneously filed with the SC instead of CA, the petition was allowed in the interest of substantial justice, considering the gravity of the offense charged [the penalty for Homicide under RA 7610, the Child ‘Abuse Act, is reclusion perpetua when the victim is under 12 years of age] and the need to expedite the disposition of the case (De Ocampo vs. Secretary of ws Justice, 480 SCRA 71). iy & > The CA is empowered under its certiorari jurisdiction to annul and deciare void the questioned resolutions of the Secretary of Justice, but only on two grounds — lack of jurisdiction Paer grave cppeal For of siscrotion amounting to lack of Ae lle an arene Aewsed Pvsee ~ Dos Ch under | NMS see iret oadUnder Rules 42 and 43 ~ +l jurisdiction /f/the power to réverse and set aside partakes of an appellate Jurisdiction ‘which the CA does not have over judgments of the Secretary. of // Justice exercising quasi-judicial functions (Buan vs. Matugas, G.R: No. 181179, August 7, 2007) BS * Under the law, the decisions of heads of departments, agencies, and instrumentaiities involving disciplinary actions against its officers and employees are final and inappealable when the penalty they impose is suspension for not more than 30 days or, as the SSC meted out to Laurel, a fine not exceeding 30 days salary. True, petitions for review under Rule 43 specifically ‘cover decisions rendered by the SSC. But this applies only to SSC decisions where the remedy of appeal is available. Here, considering that the law regards the kind of penalty the SSC imposed already final, the party had no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the decision of that body. Provided the SSC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the decision against her, this party can avail of the remedy of special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. (Laurel vs. Social Security System, G.R. No. 168707, September 15, 2010) > ugtension How appeal taken and time for ing - only one motion for reconsideration allowed (See. 4, Rule 43). Service of copy of petition on lower court and adverse party serves as notice of appeal Perfection of appeal. > Mere filing of extension of time to file petition for review under Rule 42 is not sufficient. Unless the appeal is perfected by the filing of the petition and payment of docket and other lawful fees, the CA does not acquire jurisdiction over the case (Fernandez vs. CA, 458 SCRA 454) > An appeal _fror linis cies to the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court requires exhaustion of available remedies] as a condition precedent (Teng vs. Pahagac, GAR. No. 168704, November 17,2010) because hat domething, bh dow] asinin Effect of failure to comply with requirements (Sec. 3, Rule 42; Seo. 7, Rule 43). ~ disaetionany wat oubht dismissal Review discretionary ‘# may be dismissed outright (Sec. 4, Rule 42; Seo. 8, Rule 43). ‘+ may not be given due course (See. 6, Rule 42; Sec. 10, Rule 43) Pure question of law may be brought to CA (Sec. 2, Rule 42; Sec. 3, Rule 43).~ al rue Effect of appeal + shall stay judgment or final order (Sec. 8, Rule 42) Uxuions Exceptions a, civil cases decided under the Rule on Summary Procedure y ] b. when CA, law or Rules of Court provide otherwise + shall Gye udgment or final order (Sec. 12, Rule 43). ~ $0 fie GIRO C?) Exception a. when CA directs othenwise b. when the law directs otherwise (additional exception) -not in the Rules YLapid vs. CA, July 29, 2000, and Office of the Ombudsman vs. Laja, May 2, 2006, no longer apply due to Buencamino vs. CA, April 12, 2007, Office of the Ombudsman vs. Joe! Samaniego (Resolution dated October 5, 2010) and Facura vs. CA, February 16, 2011, agid- eyed that “stay cf Judgment. depends on panatt Buercamino- nostay of judgment aepliaa er a sof ponauhy, Hm Ombudsman TRO willrnot he. effective hoe. Tales will opply - estension of (Sdays “t ISdays ~ 7 then sime jm) Ta te ee ebay esters P mse)PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI RULE: 45 ‘+ How appeal taken and time for filing (Secs. 1 & 2) * Only questions of law may be raised (Sec. 1). > Exc. In an appeal from a judgment or final order of the court in a petition for a writ of amparo or writ of habeas dala, questions of fact may be raised (A.M. No, 07-9-12-SC, Rule on the Writ of Amparo, effective October 24, 2007 ‘A.M. No, 08-0-16-SC, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, effective February 2, > Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The factual findings of the lower courts are final and conclusive and are not reviewable by the Supreme Court, unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions (Lopez vs. People G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011) > Jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts. (Republic vs. Rizalvo, Jr., G.R. No. 172011, March 7, 2011) Proof of service on lower court and adverse party (Sec. 3), Dismissal or denial of petition (Set. 5)." “~~~ When petition given due course (Sec. 6). Distinguished from certiorari as a special civil action. > Motion for reconsideration not a sine qua non for filing of a petition for review under Rule 45 (Commissioner of Intemal Revenue vs. Hantex Trading Co., Inc., 454 SCRA 304). * Factual findings of CA binding on SC. 10 Excer 499) | * "Exception to Rule 45 as a mode of appeal to SC ns (Salcedo vs. People, 347 SCRA -- notice of appeal where CA imposes reclusion perpetua - opens whole cas for reviend ~- life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, etc, (Sec. 13 (c), Rule 124, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC). + The Court has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review. (Mendoza vs. Villas, G.R. No. 187256, February 23, 2011) PETITION FOR CERTIORARI - RULE 85 + How taken and time for filing (Secs. 1 & 4). Verified petition within 60 days from notice of judgment, order or resolution, or order denying motion for new trial or reconsideration. Period now inextendible. ~ last paragraph of Section 4: "No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reasons and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days” has been DELETED by A.M. No. 07-7-12- SC, effective December 27, 2007. Hence, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. + Ifinvolving acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, petition filed in CA (Sec. 4). * Ground: grave abuse of discretion, etc. + No appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy.+ Generally, if appeal is available, certiorari cannot be resorted to. Appeal and certiorari ‘mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. > Certiorari filed instead of appeal during period of appeal did not toll period or prevent judgment from becoming final (Del Rosario vs. Galagot, 166 SCRA 429). > If remedy of appeal lost due to petitioner's neglect or error in choice of remedies, certiorari not substitute or tool to shield petitioner from adverse effects (Professional Regulations Commission vs. CA, 292 SCRA 155) > Certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal (Tan vs. Spouses Antazo, G.R. No. 187208, February 23, 2011) Exceptions: 4 When public welfare and advancement of public policy dictate. ‘When broader interest of justice so requires. % When writs issued are null and void. ‘+ When questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. 4 Where appeal is not adequate, speedy and effective. In any such instances, special civil action of certiorari may be availed of = even during the pendency of the case or even after judgment, or - even when appeal has been availed of + Availability of appeal does not foreclose recourse to certiorari where appeal not adequate, or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient (PNB vs. Sayoc, 282 SCRA 365). 4 Rule may be relaxed when rigid application will result in manifest failure or miscarriage of justice (Mejares vs. Reyes, 254 SCRA 428) ‘+ Where remedies not incompatible, filing of certiorari not abandonment of appeal. Appeal is from decision in main _ case while certiorari is against order denying motion for new trial (Lansang, Jr. vs. CA, 184 SCRA 230; St. Peter Memorial Park vs. Campos, 63 SCRA 180). ‘It is the danger of failure of justice without the writ, not the mere absence of all legal remedies, that must determine the propriety of certiorari (Seven Brothers Shipping Corp. vs. CA, 246 SCRA 33 [1995]). + Motion for reconsideration required before certiorari can be filed. Exceptions (Villena vs, Rupisan, G.R. No. 167620, April 4, 2007; Tan, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 292 SCRA 452; Marawi Marantao General Hospital vs. CA, 349 SCRA 321). + This Court has already confirmed the power of the Court of Appeals, even on a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, to review the evidence on record, when necessary, to resolve factual issues.( Culli vs, Eastem Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011) RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - RULE 38 Available only after (a) decision or final order from which relief is sought has become final and executory, and (b) loss of the right to appeal, Not available where (a) a party has another adequate remedy available him (motion for new trial or appeal) and (b) he is not prevented from filing such motion or taking the appeal. whol det. ® alkane 2 i wreaipl fede danging MIL fe onengy but we han ia indudung MH Idakea St* Relief will not be granted when a party's loss of legal remedy is due to his own negligence or mistaken mode of procedure. + Requisites: fal Inelude fabitabd o porprud foHnny - irene (1) fraud, accident, mistaké“or excusable negligence - fraud must be(extrins}b or collateral (2) presence of good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. » Time for filing petition - within 60 days after learning, and not more than 6 ae at judgment or order entered, or proceeding taken. ‘Si (elie eM, Ajuda (en DISE ~ £0 ds the Exceptions: * A few days in excess of 60-day requirement not fatal if pe from entry of order (Papa vs. CA, 303 SCRA 600), n filed within 6 months + ond ne + Petition fied beyond required period considered seasonably fled to avoid 3 ‘hak miscarriage of justice (Funtila vs, CA, 93 SCRA 251), he. Bia at ds two * Where counse'’s negligence deprived his client of his day in court, it entitled petitioner ™ to file petition for relief despite lapse of reglementary period (PHHC vs. Tongco, 12 SCRA 474 + Apstition for relief from judgment, if allowed by the Rules and not a prohibited pleading, should be filed with and resolved by the court in the same case from which the petition arose. (Afdal vs. Carlos, G.R, No. 173379, December 1, 2010) ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT ~ RULE 47 Cannot be availed of — + where party had availed of remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost therefrom; or + where he failed to avail of any such remedy thru his own fault or negligence. + Section 2, Rule 47 clearly states that extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground for annulment of order if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. Thus, extrinsic fraud is effectively barred if it could have been raised as a ground in an available remedial measure (Arcenas vs. Queen City Development Bank, G.R. No. 166819, June 16, 2010) + Before a party can avail of the reliefs provided for by Rule 47, itis a condition sine qua non that one must have failed to move for new trial in, or appeal from, oF file a petition for relief against said issuances or take other appropriate remedies thereon, through no fault attributable to him. If he failed to avail of those cited remedies without sufficient justification, he cannot resort to the action for annulment, for otherwise he would benefit from his own inaction or negligence (Republic vs Spouses De Castro, G.R. No. 189724, February 7, 2011). . In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but an absolute lack of jurisdiction (Republic vs. Technological Advocates For Agro-Forest Programs Association, Inc, (TAFPA, INC.), Respondent, G.R. No. 165333, February 9, 2010),. The petition under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court was not the proper remedy for nullifying the order of the intestate court, which directed the annotation of a lien on the titles of the Estate's properties. That order is interlocutory because it only resolved the incidental matter of whether to allow the annotation of an attorney's lien on the properties of the Estate. Evidently, that order did not settle any claim for money or impose any liability against any of the parties to the case. (Heirs and/or Estate of Aity, Rolando P. Siapian, G.R, No. 184799, September 1, 2010) Grounds and period for fling: (1) Extrinsic fraud + Fraud must be committed by adverse party, © Refers to acts outside the trial ~ prevents a party from having a trial, or a real contest, or from presenting all of his case in court = operates upon matters not pertaining to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it was procured so ‘that there is no fair submission of the controversy > In an ejectment case, the judge demanded and received money from plaintiff in order that the latter may secure the favorable outcome of the case. AS a result of the acts of both plaintiff and the judge, defendant was prevented from receiving a fair and just trial. Judgment annulled (Joven vs. Calilung, 477 SCRA 470). + Petition must be filed within four (4) years from discovery. (2) Lack of jurisdiction - judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void. © Nullity may be shown not only by what appears on the face of the decision but also by the documentary and testimonial evidence found in the record, + Petition filed before itis barred by laches or estoppel Appeal in Criminal Cases Who may appeal? “Any party’, etc. (Seo. 1, Rule 122), Adqanitial- mee Oa canwoh fe State cannot appeal from judgment of acquittal based on merits of case due to double jeopardy, > Inthe absence of a finding of mistrial, ic., the criminal trial was a sham, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable, whether it happens at the trial ‘court or the Court of Appeals (People vs. CA, 423 SCRA 605; People vs. Velasco, 340 SCRA 207). > A review of the sufficiency of evidence and of the propriety of acquittal lies outside the function of certiorari (People vs. Bans, 239 SCRA 48). Whether or not the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused cannot be resolved in a special civil action of certiorari (People vs. CA, 431 SCRA 610) Certiorari will only ie to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. v Judgment or order of acquittal may be challenged in a petition for certiorari for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction due to a violation of due process, i... the prosecution was denied the opportunity tov v ; pond ore danial of due grou 7 see Sey one ma present its case or that the trial was a sham. In such cases, double jeopardy will not attach. The petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice (People vs, Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 74; Philipine Savings Bank vs. Bermoy, 471 SCRA 94). Prosecution may appeal an order of dismissal of a criminal complaint or information where dismissal order was issued by the trial judge before accused was arraigned (Comelec vs. Silva, 285 SCRA 177). The private complainant may appeal on the civil aspect of the case where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused, which means. that he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. (Manantan vs. CA, 350 SCRA 387). It is settled that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. Nonetheless, insofar as the civil aspect of the case is, ‘concemed, the offended party, despite a judgment of acquittal, is afforded the remedy of appeal. (Garces vs. Hemandez, Jr., G.R. No. 180761, August 9, 2010) On occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But the grounds are exceptional and narrow_as when the court that absolved the accused gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has ‘cccurted. In any of such cases, the State may assail the decision by special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. (Lejano vs. People, G.R. No. 176389, January 18, 2011) Double jeopardy will not set in because illegal recruitment is malum prohibiturn, in which there is no necessity to prove criminal intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is necessary. ( Sy vs. People, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010) When an accused appeals from the judgment of his conviction, he waives his constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy and throws the entire case open for appellate review. We are then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate in the exercise of our concomitant authority to review and sift through the whole case to correct any error, even if unassigned. (Gelig vs. People, GAR, No. 173160, July 28, 2010) Double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the accused has not been atraigned and it was upon his express motion that the case was dismissed.(People vs. Gabo, G.R, No. 161083, August 3, 2010) To substantiate a claim for double jeopardy, the following must be demonstrated: (1) [A] first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or Is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof. And legal jeopardy attaches only: (2) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (¢) [when] a valid plea [has] been entered,and (9) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. (Jacob vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162208, 2010 November 17, 2010) | + No double jeopardy ~ dani WA, 4. where state is deprived of fair opporturity to prosecute and prove its case 4M ot fas | 2. where dismissal of information or complaint is purely capricious or devoid of reason! 9 wines) | 3, where there is lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard | * Order granting motion to quash is final. Prosecution may appeal an order granting motion to quash, except: where ground for dismissal is that criminal action or liability has been extinguished 2. where ground is that accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged © Appeal from MTC to RTC i Where MTC has jurisdiction over offense (imprisonment not more than 6 yrs.) How appeal taken and time for filing (Secs. 3 & 6, Rule 122). ‘+ Appeal from RTC to CA + Original jurisdiction of RTC = Ordinary appeal (Sec. 3 (a), Rule 122). > If motion for new trial granted, accused has 15 days from notice of new decision to appeal > If motion for reconsideration is partly granted, and judgment of conviction modified, accused has 15 days to appeal. > Where RTC imposes reciusion perpetua, life imprisonment or where lesser penalty imposed for offenses committed on same occasion, etc. ~ notice of appeal to CA (Seo. 3 (0), Rule 122, as am. by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC pursuant to People vs. Mateo). > Where RTC imposes death penaity — automatic review by CA (Sec. 3 (4), Ibid.) © Intermediate review by CA of cases where penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment (People vs. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640) . Appeliate jurisdiction of RTC ~ Petition for review under Rule 42 (Sec. 3 (b), Rule 122). + Appeal from CA and $B to SC = Petition for review under Rule 45 (Sec. 3 (e), Rule 122; Sec. 7, PD 1618, as am. by RA 8249). Exceptions: . CA where CA imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, ete. + notice of appeal to SC (Sec. 13 (c), Rule 124, as am. by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC). N.B. (1) Where CA finds that death penalty should be imposed, will render judgment but refrain from making entry of judgment and certify case and elevate entire record to SC for review (Sec. 13 (a), Ibid.) (2) Where judgment also imposes lesser penalty for offenses committed on same occasion or arose out of same occurrence that gave rise to more serious offense for which Jeruggua i oko axppticanls Wovnan Cou — SC camSUPREME COURT T Review of Judgments and Final Ones scene of ONELEC ules: Appeal by Catri PO. 2606, snanded by RA. Gaels ~Aueds ve.foseaciy cOMBLECR RA S22 ty $C 5249, 57 RA. 6794, dice IN, $6 eee ander Rule 65) ‘Rule 6S: Certorai Peoibon Rule 4S: Appeal by Ceri Le elatcla snd Miedirie sc , Rue: Cer St COB on Carson Cire OMBUDSMAN COMELEC, | COURT OF SHARIA I + 1 | eet pet nm te bee bese Rude 2: eton fer Reiw fm Phils vs. abbot ull 42: Appa fara C30 TCR CA Laboratories Quasi uli Rude 47: Anoulmere of udynents or ertora Eroploye2s Union ‘Agandiesto CA FinslOrders and Resulusons - , {under Rule €8) fle 8; cara, econ a yma Toles 6D. 1606, Nandos : ere and Se oypelty amended by rile) fue 122 end cay MTN are kuconatfadencin of | Hates alae fal ¥e anise (under Rule 68) ee (Gaara cass Rude 122, £34: Aviorna (Cains, or | Fs te b OMBUDSMAN SECRETARY OF LABOR.AND EMPLOYMENT ein | jure |] subreraL AGENCIES bt, QUASI FAMILY COURTS PD.A42,ftide 228 LABOR ARBITER REGIONAL TRIAL ‘COURT SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT T Rule 40: Appeal fom Mire Pale 65: Cereeat Proton and Mandamus Rule 122, 63a: Appaal by Mavic of Appeal (Criminal Cases) 2.0, 1083, arts 144 MTG, METRO TC | mec, mere | SHARI'A CIRCUIT ‘cOURT