You are on page 1of 18

JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL

(for the use of the Training and Development Section, Human Resource Management Division, v. 2018)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Preliminary matters ……………….. 1
II. Jurisdiction, defined ……………….. 3
III. Aspects of jurisdiction ……………….. 3
IV. Venue ……………….. 5
V. Jurisdictions of the different courts ……………….. 6
VI. Agencies with quasi-judicial power ……………….. 14
VII. The government counsels ……………….. 14
VIII. Appeal ……………….. 15

I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
The matter of jurisdiction is best discussed within the context of the powers of
the three branches of the Philippine government:

1. The legislative power, the power to make, alter, and repeal laws, is vested
in Congress – a bicameral body comprised of the Senate and the House of
Representatives;1

2. The executive power, which essentially is the power to enforce the laws
of the land, is vested in the President;2

3. The judicial power, which includes the power to interpret the law, is vested
in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as may be created by law.3

Judicial power has three (3) aspects, viz.:

1. Adjudicatory power: the power to settle actual controversies involving


rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

Ex.: X owes Y P500,000. The loan fell due on 5 June 2018, but X failed
to pay the same on even date. Later on, Y sent X a formal demand
for the payment of the loan, but to no avail.

Y can institute a suit for collection of sum of money against X with


the proper court – here, the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

2. Power of judicial review: the power to pass upon the validity or


constitutionality of laws, treaties, international or executive agreements,
decrees, ordinances, etc., to interpret the same, and to render binding
judgments thereon; expanded under the 1987 Constitution to include the
power to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of government.

Ex.: Falcis v. Civil Registrar General,4 now pending before the Supreme
Court, is the most recent case, news cycle-wise, in which the final
arbiter is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review. In
Falcis, the issue is whether certain provisions of the Family Code
(such as those defining marriage as a special contract of permanent
union between a man and a woman) are unconstitutional.

1 Art. VI, Sec. 1, 1987 CONST.


2 Art. VII, Sec. 1, 1987 CONST.
3 Art. VIII, Sec. 1, 1987 CONST.
4 G.R. No. 217910.

1
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

3. Incidental powers: a bundle of powers and traits, both judicial and


administrative, which are necessary for the effective discharge of the above
functions (e.g. rule-making power, administrative supervision and control
over all court personnel, contempt powers, fiscal autonomy, etc.).

Ex.: The Rules of Court – which lays out the procedure for ordinary and
special civil actions, special proceedings, and criminal cases, sets
the rules on evidence, and prescribes the guidelines for admission
to the practice of law – were created by virtue of the Supreme
Court’s rule-making power.

Corollary to these vast powers are the principles of separation of powers and
checks and balances. These two principles serve as safeguards against
totalitarianism, that is, that the great powers of government are never at the beck and
call of a single branch, but distributed among all three in such a way that no one branch
is more powerful than the others, thus ensuring parity among them.

In general terms, separation of powers ensures that (1) Congress can make
laws but not enforce them, or resolve controversies on their interpretation; (2) the
executive department can enforce laws but not make or interpret them, at least not in
the way either Congress or the courts could; and (3) the courts can neither create nor
enforce laws, but can interpret them for the guidance of all.

The principle of checks and balances, for its part, makes it so that a power
wielded by one branch is “checked” by a power possessed by another branch, thereby
preventing unbridled exercise of the former. Checks and balances at work can be seen
in some of these scenarios:

1. Legislation; veto: A law passed by Congress can be vetoed by the


President, whose veto can be overridden by a vote of at least 2/3 of all
members of each House of Congress.

2. Martial law: The President may, in cases of invasion or rebellion, when


public safety so requires, declare martial law or suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus.

The President’s proclamation may be revoked by a majority vote of all


members of Congress, with both Houses voting jointly, upon the
submission by the President of a report within 48 hours from his
proclamation.

The Supreme Court can exercise its power of judicial review on the
sufficiency of the President's factual basis for his proclamation, upon the
filing of a proper petition by any Filipino citizen – as was done in Lagman
v. Medialdea5 regarding the declaration of martial law over Mindanao.

3. Appointments: The President's power to appoint certain public officers –


such as his Cabinet secretaries – is checked by being made subject to the
confirmation of the Commission of Appointments, a special constitutional
body comprised of members of Congress.

4. Judicial power as a check against the rest of government: as enshrined


in the 1987 Constitution, judicial power allows the courts of justice can pass
upon not only justiciable controversies, but matters previously considered
to have fallen within the ambit of the political question doctrine, as well.

A “political question” is either (1) one which is to be answered by the People


in their sovereign capacity, or (2) one regarding which full discretionary
authority has been vested in the political branches of government (i.e. the
executive and legislative branches).

5 G.R. No. 231658 (2017).

2
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

For example: the expulsion of a member of, say, the House of


Representatives is a political question, involving the wisdom of the public
officers comprising said House and therefore beyond the pale of judicial
review. However, if grave abuse of discretion is alleged to have been
committed, the issue can then be heard by the courts.

One may be led to think – understandably – that the expanded definition of


judicial review put the judiciary atop a pedestal, where it stood well above its co-
branches. The judiciary stands alone in its capability to interpret the law with finality
for everyone, whether in the public or private spheres. Moreover, all it takes is for one
to establish grave abuse of discretion for an otherwise political question to be
answered through the court’s power of review. While the judiciary wielded neither
sword nor purse, our organic law gave it something stronger: the last word.

However, the notion of a judiciary towering over the other branches of


government cannot be further from the truth, because (1) when the court exercises
judicial review, it upholds not its own supremacy but that of the Constitution; and (2)
judicial power, while pervasive, is not limitless.

For a court to exercise judicial power in resolving a legal dispute, it must be


possessed of, among others, jurisdiction.

II. JURISDICTION, DEFINED


Jurisdiction, generally, is the power of the court to hear, try, and decide a
case. The Supreme Court, in Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, laid out an
expanded definition of jurisdiction – that jurisdiction is also the court’s power to execute
its judgment until the final disposition thereof, or full and complete service of sentence
of the accused.

There is also the concept of residual jurisdiction, to be discussed later.

III. ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION


Civil? Criminal?
(a) Subject matter: power to deal w/ the general subject
involved in the action (in criminal procedure, this is  
jurisdiction over the offense)
 What determines jurisdiction are the material
allegations of the complaint as laid out in the
facts6 (i.e. the primary purpose[s] of the complaint
regarding the relief sought)

(b) Parties: power over parties in a case, & to determine


their rights/liabilities (in criminal procedure, this is  
jurisdiction over the accused only; jurisdiction need not
be had with the private complainant as it is the People of
the Philippines which brings the action); acquired by –

PLAINTIFF Filing of the complaint


1. Coercive power of legal processes
DEFENDANT over one’s person (i.e. summons)
2. Voluntary appearance in court

Ex.:7 (1) X filed a collection case against Y with RTC-


Manila. For some reason, Y was not
summoned yet. When Y learned that he was

6 Russel v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738 (1999).


7 The above examples were taken from “Voluntary Appearance – Remedial Law Notes,”
http://remediallawnotes.blogspot.com/2017/07/voluntary-appearance.html, last accessed 20 June 2018. The
writer of this handout expresses his gratitude to the person(s) behind the Remedial Law Notes “blawg.”

3
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

sued, however, he filed a Motion for Extension


of Time to File Answer, which the RTC
granted. X moved that Y be declared in default.
Y, of course, opposed X’s motion, contending
that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over
him because he was not summoned. Is Y
correct?

NO. When Y filed his Motion for Extension of


Time to File Answer, he prayed for a relief, thus
voluntarily recognizing the court’s jurisdiction
over his person.

(2) What if Y, instead of filing a Motion for


Extension of Time, filed a Motion to Dismiss on
the ground that the RTC had not acquired
jurisdiction over his person – and his Motion
was denied? Can Y be deemed to have
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court
upon his filing of the Motion to Dismiss?

NO, as Y contested the RTC’s jurisdiction over


his person in his Motion to Dismiss.

(3) What if this time, in addition to lack of


jurisdiction, Y included other grounds in his
Motion to Dismiss such as, say, improper
venue? Assuming the Motion was denied, can
Y be deemed to have submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court?

NO, as the inclusion of other grounds for


dismissal in a Motion to Dismiss anchored on
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant does not equate to voluntary
appearance.8

(c) Issues: power to try & decide issues –


 
9
- Raised in the pleadings; or
- Agreed upon in a pre-trial order; or
- Tried by the parties’ implied consent;10 or
- “Waived into existence,” i.e. conferred by failure to
object to the presentation of evidence on a matter
not raised in the pleadings11

(d) Res: over property in litigation; acquired by –


 
- Actual or constructive seizure by the court, thereby
placing it in custodia legis; or
- Law recognizing the power to deal with property
within its territorial jurisdiction

(e) Territory (criminal procedure): that, as a rule, a


criminal case should be filed in the place where the crime  
is committed
 Exception: Art. 2, Revised Penal Code (RPC) –
certain felonies committed outside Philippine

8 Rule 14, Sec. 20, Rules of Court.


9 Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484 (1941).
10 Rule 18, Sec. 2, Rules of Court.
11 Rule 10, Sec. 5, Rules of Court.

4
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

territory (e.g. counterfeiting Philippine currency)


can be prosecuted within the country

IV. VENUE
Whenever jurisdiction is brought up, venue will never be too far behind. Venue
is the place where an action is to be filed and tried – for example, if a collection case
is pending before the Quezon City RTC, “RTC” connotes the court with jurisdiction
over the case; “Quezon City,” on the other hand, refers to the venue.

In civil actions, as shown above, venue is distinct from jurisdiction:

JURISDICTION VENUE
Conferred by law For parties’ convenience
Substantial, thus: Procedural, thus:
1. Cannot be waived 1. Waivable
2. Cannot be stipulated upon 2. Can be subject of agreement
The court can take cognizance of
such an agreement if made:
(a) In writing
(b) Before institution of action
The court can motu proprio dismiss a There can be no motu proprio dismissal
case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the ground of improper venue; the
court cannot take the cudgels for the
parties and must wait for a Motion to
Dismiss (MTD) on that ground.
 Exception: Cases falling under the
Rules on Summary Procedure;*
the court can motu proprio dismiss
under any of the grounds for MTD
(which includes improper venue)
* Cases governed by the Rules on
Summary Procedure will be tackled in the
latter pages of this handout.

In real actions, venue is where the property or any part thereof is located.

Ex.: A leased his apartment located in Quezon City to B. At first, B


conscientiously paid his monthly rent, but there came a point when he
stopped paying altogether. Naturally, A demanded that B pay his
outstanding rent or leave the apartment. B did neither, and was, for one
reason or another, apparently adamant in staying.

A can file an action for unlawful detainer with the MTC of Quezon City.
Being an ejectment case, the MTC has jurisdiction; the venue would be
Quezon City because that is where A’s apartment is.

Venue in personal actions may either be (1) the residence of the plaintiff or the
defendant; or (2) where a non-resident defendant may be found, at the option of the
plaintiff.

Ex.: (1) X, a resident of Taguig, owes Y, who lives in Manila, P500,000. X’s
debt fell due, but remained unpaid despite subsequent formal
demand from Y. Should Y decide to file a case, the court with
jurisdiction is the RTC – but which RTC? Y can choose to file the
case with the RTC of Manila, being where she lives, or with the RTC
of Taguig, where X resides.

(2) What if X in the previous example is a Swedish national, and Y is a


resident of Camarines Sur who happened to be staying in Quezon
City while reviewing for the bar exams? Let us say Y chanced upon

5
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

X in Quezon City. Y can then opt to file a collection case against X


with the Quezon City RTC.

Venue is appreciated in criminal cases differently from how it is in civil cases:

IN CIVIL CASES IN CRIMINAL CASES


Not a matter of jurisdiction (i.e. venue Rule 117, Section 3, Rules of Court:
and jurisdiction are different things) venue is jurisdictional – an information
filed in a place other than where the
offense was committed may be quashed
for lack of jurisdiction over the offense
charged

V. JURISDICTIONS OF THE DIFFERENT COURTS


A. THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the Philippines. It has


administrative supervision over all other courts and their personnel.

The Court is a collegial body consisting of 1 Chief Justice and 14 Associate


Justices. As of this writing, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio presides
over the Court as its Acting Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is primus inter pares,12
presiding over sessions, controlling the flow of proceedings, and summarizing
discussions, but possessed of only one vote like the rest of the Court.13

Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution defines the powers of the Supreme Court,
each of which are either judicial or administrative in nature. The latter category
pertains to (1) supervision and control over the Philippine judiciary and its
personnel, as well as the members of the Bar; and (2) rule-making power.

CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive: petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs. –
(a) CA
(b) CTA
(c) COMELEC en banc
(d) COA
(e) Sandiganbayan
2. Concurrent:
(a) W/ CA:
- Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs. –
i. NLRC, under the Labor Code
Hierarchy of courts: must file w/ CA first, otw. SC shall dismiss14
ii. Civil Service Commission (CSC)
iii. Quasi-judicial agencies
iv. RTCs & other lower courts (must also file w/ CA first)
- Petitions for issuance of writ of kalikasan (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
(b) W/ CA & RTC: petitions for –
- Habeas corpus & quo warranto
- Certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs. lower courts/other bodies
(c) W/ CA, Sandiganbayan, & RTC: petitions for –
- Amparo
- Habeas data, where the action involves public data or gov’t office
(d) W/ RTC: actions affecting ambassadors/other public ministers & consuls
APPELLATE
1. Petitions for review on certiorari vs. –

12 Latin, “first among equals.”


13 See CJ (Ret.) Panganiban, Artemio V., “Wanted: new chief justice.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 16 June 2012.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/30785/wanted-new-chief-justice, last accessed 11 July 2018.
14 St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 (1998).

6
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

(a) CA
(b) CTA en banc
(c) Sandiganbayan
(d) RTC in cases –
- Where no question of fact is involved & the case is one involving the:
i. Constitutionality/validity of a treaty, int’l/executive agreement, law,
PD, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
ii. Legality of taxes/imposts/assessments/tolls; penalties rel. thereto
iii. Jurisdiction of the lower court (i.e. being put at issue)
- Where only errors or questions of law are involved
2. Special civil action of certiorari filed w/in 30 days vs. COMELEC/COA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive: petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the CA
and the Sandiganbayan
2. Concurrent:
(a) W/ CA: petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against RTCs
(b) W/ CA & RTC: certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts
(c) W/ Sandiganbayan: petitions for mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, injunctions, and ancillary writs in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction & over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto
arising or that may arise in cases filed/under EOs 1, 2, 14, & 14-A, s. 1986
EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
1. By appeal:
(a) From the RTCs in all criminal cases involving offenses for which the
penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and those involving
other offenses which, although not so punished, arose out of the same
occurrence of which may have been committed by the accused on the
same occasion
(b) Automatic review in criminal cases where the death penalty is imposed
2. By petition for review on certiorari:
(a) From the CA
(b) From the Sandiganbayan
(c) From the RTCs where only an error or question of law is involved

B. COURT OF APPEALS

The Court of Appeals (CA) is the Philippines’ second-highest court,


consisting of 1 Presiding Justice – currently Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza –
and 68 Associate Justices.

The CA was established by virtue of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; as such, it is the first among Art. VIII, Sec.
1’s “such other courts as may be created by law.”

The CA sits in Division, with 3 members each, and only sits en banc for
exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions. The 23
Divisions of the CA are apportioned throughout the country as follows:

1. 1st to 17th: Manila Station


- Cases resolved: from the 1st to the 5th Judicial Regions
th th
2. 18 to 20 : Cebu City Station
- Cases resolved: from the 6th to the 8th Judicial Regions
st rd
3. 21 to 23 : Cagayan de Oro City Station
- Cases resolved: from the 9th to 12th Judicial Regions15

CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive: actions for annulment of judgment of RTC based on –
(a) Extrinsic fraud

15 CA Court Profile. http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/index.php?action=profile2, last accessed 10 July 2018.

7
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

(b) Lack of jurisdiction


2. Concurrent:
(a) W/ SC:
- Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs. –
i. NLRC
ii. CSC
iii. Quasi-judicial agencies
iv. RTCs & other lower courts
- Petitions for issuance of writ of kalikasan
(b) W/ SC & RTC: petitions for –
- Habeas corpus & quo warranto
- Certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs. lower courts/other bodies
(c) W/ SC, Sandiganbayan, & RTC: petitions for –
- Amparo
3. Habeas data, where the action involves public data or gov’t office
APPELLATE
1. Final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, awards of –
(a) RTC –
- In the exercise of both original & appellate jurisdictions
- As Family Court
- On questions of constitutionality/validity of tax, jurisdiction involving
questions of fact w/c should be appealed first w/ the CA
- Appeals from RTC in cases appealed from MTC not as matter of right
(b) MTC in the exercise of its delegated jurisdiction
2. Appeals from:
(a) CSC
(b) Quasi-judicial agencies
(c) National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
(d) Ombudsman (in administrative disciplinary cases)16 (via Rule 43)17
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive: actions for annulment of judgments of the RTCs
2. Concurrent:
(a) W/ SC: petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against RTCs
(b) W/ SC & RTC: certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts
EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
1. By appeal: from the RTCs in cases commenced therein, except those
appealable to the SC or the Sandiganbayan
2. By petition for review: from the RTCs in cases appealed thereto from the
lower courts and not appealable to the Sandiganbayan

C. SANDIGANBAYAN

The Sandiganbayan is a special appellate court, equivalent in rank to the


CA, established under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606 to try and decide
criminal cases against government officials and employees accused of graft and
corruption and similar cases, currently headed by Presiding Justice Amparo M.
Cabotaje-Tang.

The Sandiganbayan sits in 7 divisions of 3 members each.18

ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive: cases involving violations of –
(a) R.A. 3019, as amended (Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. 1379
(re: recovery of property illegally acquired by public officers), and
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II (Arts. 210-212), RPC (i.e. direct
and indirect bribery; corruption of public officers), where one or more of
the accused are officials occupying the following positions in

16 Mendoza-Arce v. Ombudsman, 380 SCRA 325 (2002).


17 Francisco, Jr. v. Desierto, 602 SCRA 50 (2009).
18 Sec. 3, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660.

8
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

government, whether in permanent, acting, or interim capacity, at the


time of the commission of the offense:
- Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional
director or higher, otherwise classified as Salary Grade (SG) 27 and
higher under R.A. 6758 (Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989), specifically including:
> Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads
> City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
city department heads
> Officials of the diplomatic service (consul and higher)
> Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all
officers of higher rank
> Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the
position of provincial director and those holding the rank of
senior superintendent or higher
> City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and
officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and
special prosecutors
> Presidents, directors or trustees, or manages of government-
owned or controlled corporations, state universities, or
educational institutions or foundations
- Members of Congress & officials thereof classified as SG 27 and up
- Members of the Judiciary and chairmen & members of constitutional
commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution*
- All other national and local officials classified as SC 27 and up
(b) Other offenses or felonies, whether simple of complexed with other
crimes, committed in relation to their office by the above-mentioned
public officials and employees19
(c) EOs 1, 2, 14, & 14-A, s. 1986 (both civil and criminal cases)
Re: criminal cases – the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction if the information
(a) alleges any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges
damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely
related transactions/acts in an amount exceeding P1,000,00020
 If the information does not allege either, the RTC has jurisdiction
* “Without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution” refers to the provisions
of Art. XI on impeachment, as (a) the justices of the Supreme Court and the
members of the constitutional commissions are impeachable officers; and (b)
graft and corruption is an impeachable offense
2. Concurrent:
(d) W/ SC:
- Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus,
injunction, & other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
(including quo warranto) arising in cases under Eos 1, 2, 14, & 14-A
(e) W/ SC, CA, & RTC: petitions for –
- Amparo
- Habeas data, where the action involves public data or gov’t office
EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
Exclusive Appellate
1. Appeals from decisions of the RTCs in cases under P.D. 1606, as amended
by P.D. 1861, whether the cases were decided by them in the exercise of
their original or appellate jurisdiction

As can be seen above, to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has


jurisdiction, one must first look into the following: the nature of the offense and
the salary grade of the public official involved. If the Sandiganbayan does not have
jurisdiction, the appropriate court may either be the RTC or the MTC, viz.:

19 Sec. 4(a), P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 7975.


20 Sec. 2, R.A. 10660, amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

9
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

Is the offense a violation of R.A. 3018, R.A.


1379, or Arts. 210-212 of the RPC?

YES NO
Does the information (a) allege any
damage to the government or any
bribery, or (b) allege damage to the Is the accused (or at least one of the
government or bribery arising from accused) classified as SG 27 and
the same or closely related up?
transactions or acts in an amount
not exceeding P1,000,000?

YES NO YES NO
Is the offense
punishable by
Sandigan- Sandigan-
RTC imprisonment
bayan bayan
exceeding six
(6) years?

NOTE: The above rules, of course, presuppose YES NO


that the offense was committed by a public officer. RTC MTC

D. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is a special court of limited jurisdiction


at the same level as the CA, consisting of 1 Presiding Justice – currently Presiding
Justice Roman G. Del Rosario – and 8 Associate Justices.

As expanded by law, the CTA’s jurisdiction now includes (1) criminal and
tax collection cases under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and the
Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA), and (2) cases involving local and
real property taxes previously within the ambit of the RTC and the CA.

TAX JURISDICTION
EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
NOTE: Any dispute or controversy involving national internal revenue taxes or customs
duties not part of the following list (e.g. taxpayer’s suit impugning the constitutionality of
a tax law) falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
1. CTA En Banc:
(a) Decisions/resolutions on MRs/MNTs21 of the CTA in Division in the
exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over:
- Cases arising from administrative agencies (BIR/BOC/DTI/DOF/DA)
- Local tax cases decided by the RTC in exercise of original
jurisdiction
- Tax collection cases decided by the RTC in exercise of original
jurisdiction involving final and executory assessments for taxes,
fees, charges, and penalties, where the principal amount of taxes
and penalties claimed is less than P1,000,000
- Cases involving criminal offenses arising from violations of the NIRC
or the CMTA and other laws administered by the BIR or BOC
(b) Decisions/resolutions/orders on MRs/MNTs of the CTA in Division in the
exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over:
- Tax collection cases
- Cases involving criminal offenses arising from violations of the NIRC
or the CMTA and other laws administered by the BIR or BOC
(c) Decisions, etc. of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction re:
- Local tax cases
- Tax collection cases

21 Motions for Reconsideration/New Trial.

10
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

- Cases involving criminal offenses arising from violations of the NIRC


or the CMTA and other laws administered by the BIR or BOC
(d) Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving assessment
and taxation of real property originally decided by the Provisional or City
Board of Assessment Appeals
2. CTA in Division:
(a) Decisions (or inaction, where a period of action is prescribed) of the CIR:
- In cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal
revenue taxes, fees, or other charges, or penalties in relation
thereto; or
- Other matters under the NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR
(b) Decisions/orders/resolutions of the RTC in local tax cases decided or
resolved by them in the exercise of its original jurisdiction
(c) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs:
- In cases involving liability for customs duties, fees, or other money
charges; seizure, detention or release of property affected; fines and
forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto; or
- Other matters under the CMTA or other laws administered by BOC
(d) Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him
automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs
which are adverse to the government under Secs. 1127-1128, CMTA
(e) Decisions of the:
- Secretary of Trade and Industry, re: non-agricultural products; or
- Secretary of Agriculture, re: agricultural products;
… involving dumping or countervailing duties (under Secs. 711 and
713, CMTA) and safeguard measures (under Sec. 712, CMTA) where
either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said
duties
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
All criminal cases where the principal amount involved of taxes and fees is
P1,000,000 or more, exclusive of charges and penalties, arising from violations
of the NIRC, CMTA, and other laws administered by the BIR or BOC
 If the principal amount is less than P1,000,000, or no amount is
specified, the regular courts have jurisdiction
EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
1. Appeals from judgments, resolutions, or orders of the RTCs in tax cases
originally decided by them in their respective territorial jurisdiction
2. Petitions for review of judgments/resolutions/orders of the RTCs in exercise
of appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the MTCs

E. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Previously called the “Courts of First Instance,” the Regional Trial Courts
(RTCs) are courts of general jurisdiction scattered throughout the thirteen judicial
regions of the Philippines.

CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive:
(a) Subject of litigation = incapable of pecuniary estimation (this includes
expropriation [regardless of the value of the subject property],22
reformation of instrument, and consolidation of ownership23)
(b) Sum-of-money cases: > P300K (P400K in MMLA) 24

22 Brgy. San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor, 334 SCRA 127 (2000); the power of the State to expropriate property for
public use cannot be quantified. As said in San Roque, “In the main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the
governments exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.”
23 Actions for consolidation of ownership are incapable of pecuniary estimation as their purpose is registration.
24 Metro Manila.

11
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

- Cases where the demand (exclusive of DIALeC: damages, interest,


attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, & costs of suit), or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds…
- Actions in admiralty & maritime jurisdiction  claim exceeds…
- Matters of probate  gross value of estate exceeds…
(c) Real actions: assessed value > P20K (P50K in MMLA)
Exception: forcible entry & unlawful detainer = MTC (see next page)
(d) Cases not w/in the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person,
or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
 Why? RTCs are courts of general jurisdiction
(e) Civil actions/special proceedings falling w/in the exc. orig. jurisdiction of:
- Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court
- Court of Agrarian Reforms
(f) Intra-corporate controversies25 (Sec. 5.2, SRC)
2. Concurrent:
(a) W/ SC, Sandiganbayan, & CA: writs of amparo & habeas corpus
(b) W/ SC: actions affecting ambassadors/other public ministers & consuls
(c) W/ SC & CA: petitions for –
- Habeas corpus & quo warranto
- Certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs. lower courts/other bodies
(d) W/ MTC – cases involving violations of envi. & other related laws, etc.
APPELLATE
GR: All cases decided by lower courts in their resp. territorial jurisdictions
XPN: Decisions of lower courts re: delegated jurisdiction (see below)
 As if they have been decided by the RTC itself!
SPECIAL (Sec. 23, B.P. 129)
The SC may designate certain RTC branches to try exclusively:
1. Criminal, agrarian, juvenile & domestic relations, & urban land reform cases
not falling w/in the jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial body; and
2. Other special cases in the interest of justice
FAMILY COURTS
Exclusive/Original:
1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus re: minor(s)
2. Petitions for adoption of children & revocation thereof
3. Marriage-related cases:
(a) Complaints for annulment & declaration of nullity of marriage
(b) Cases referring to marital status & property relations of spouses or those
living together under different status/agreements
(c) Petitions for dissolution of CPG
4. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
5. Summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code
6. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent, or
neglected, petitions for voluntary/involuntary commitment of children;
suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority, & other cases
cognizable under P.D. 603 (Child & Youth Welfare Code), EO 56, s. 1986
(re: protective custody of sexually exploited children c/o DSWD), & rel. laws
7. Petitions for constitution of family home
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
1. All criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court/tribunal
 Why? Again, RTCs are courts of general jurisdiction
2. Cases otherwise within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, where the information (a) does not allege any damage to
the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or
bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an
amount not exceeding P1,000,00026
EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
All cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions
SPECIAL ANTI-DRUGS COURTS (R.A. 9165)

25 Sec. 5.2, Securities Regulation Code.


26 Note 19, supra.

12
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

The SC shall designate special courts from among the existing RTCs in each
judicial region to exclusively try & hear cases involving violations of R.A. 916527

F. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, ETC.

Every municipality in the Philippines has its own Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) – where such a court covers two or more municipalities, it is called a
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). If an MTC is within the Metropolitan Manila
area, it is referred to as a Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). In cities outside
Metropolitan Manila, an MTC is called a Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC).

CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
1. Sum-of-money (DIALeC, admiralty, probate): ≤ P300K (P400K in MMLA)
2. Real actions: assessed value ≤ P20K (P50K in MMLA)
3. Summary procedure:
(a) Forcible entry/unlawful detainer (irrespective of damages/unpaid rent)
(b) Other cases where total amt. of the claim ≤ P100K (P200K in MMLA)
4. Inclusion/exclusion of voters
DELEGATED
Cadastral & land registration cases, provided –
1. No controversy/opposition; &
2. Contested lots valued > P100K
SPECIAL
Petitions for habeas corpus (in the absence of all RTC judges)
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
1. All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdictions
2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and in all cases of damage to property
through criminal negligence, regardless of other penalties and the civil
liabilities arising therefrom
3. All offenses (except violations of R.A. 3018, R.A. 1379, and Arts. 210 to 212,
RPC) committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office,
including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations,
and by private individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices or
accessories, punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years or where
none of the accused holds a position of SG 27 and higher
SUMMARY PROCEDURE
1. Traffic violations
2. Violations of the rental law
3. Violations of city or municipal ordinances
4. All other offenses where the penalty does not exceed 6 months imprisonment
and/or P1,000 fine, irrespective of other penalties or civil liabilities arising
therefrom, & in offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence where the imposable fine ≤ P10,000

G. SHARI’A COURTS

Philippine Shari’a law, as laid out in the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of
the Philippines, provides for two Islamic courts: the Shari’a District Courts and
the Shari’a Circuit Courts. There are 5 Shari’a District Courts and 51 Shari’a
Circuit Courts in existence.

A Shari’a District Court is one of limited jurisdiction, primarily pertaining to


family rights and duties as well as contractual relations of Filipino Muslims in
Mindanao. It has appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried by the Shari’a Circuit
Courts within their respective territorial jurisdictions.

27 Sec. 90, R.A. 9165.

13
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

The decisions of the Shari’a District Courts, whether on appeal from the
Shari’a Circuit Courts or not, shall be final – but without prejudice to the jurisdiction
of the SC over certain issues as provided by the Constitution.

VI. AGENCIES WITH QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER


A. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is a quasi-judicial


body tasked to promote and maintain industrial peace by resolving labor and
management disputes involving both local and overseas workers through
compulsory arbitration and alternative modes of dispute resolution.

The NLRC is attached to the Department of Labor and Employment


(DOLE) for program and policy coordination.

B. OMBUDSMAN

The Ombudsman and her deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees
of the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned and -controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative,
civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence so warrants to promote
efficient service by the government to the people.28

The Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints filed against high-ranking


government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions, complaints
involving grave offenses, as well as complaints involving large sums of money
and/or properties.29

VII. THE GOVERNMENT COUNSELS


In every legal dispute, the old saying rings true: “It takes two to tango.” On one
hand, we have the court that hears the case, threshes the evidence, and resolves the
dispute brought before it; on the other hand, we have the parties seeking to protect
their rights under the law. Where the Republic’s interests figure prominently in a legal
dispute, it is the job of the government counsels to take up the cudgels.

A. OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) represents the Government of


the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials and agents in
any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring the services of lawyers.
When authorized by the President or the head of the office concerned, OSG shall
also represent government-owned and -controlled corporations.

B. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is referred to by EO 292, the


Administrative Code of 1987, as the government’s principal law agency. As such,
the DOJ serves as the government’s prosecution arm and administers the
government’s criminal justice system by investigating crimes, prosecuting
offenders, and overseeing the correctional system.

C. PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) provides indigent litigants, the


oppressed, the marginalized, and the underprivileged free access to courts and

28 Sec. 13, R.A. 6770; see also Art. XI, Sec. 12, 1987 CONST.
29 Sec. 15, R.A. 6770.

14
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

other judicial and quasi-judicial agencies by rendering legal services, counselling,


and assistance in criminal, civil, labor, and administrative cases.

For a person to qualify for PAO’s legal assistance, he must pass two tests:
the merit test and the indigency test. Under PAO Memorandum Circular (MC)
No. 18, s. 2002, a case is “meritorious” if an assessment of the law and evidence
discloses that PAO’s legal services will assist or be in aid of or in the furtherance
of justice, taking into consideration the interests of the party and those of society.
On the other hand, per PAO MC No. 02, s. 2010, a prospective client is “indigent”
if his net monthly income does not exceed P14,000 if he resides in Metro Manila,
P13,000 if in any other city, or P12,000 elsewhere. For purposes of determining
whether a client is indigent, ownership of real property is not taken into account.30

D. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL

The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) is the


principal and statutory law office of government-owned and -controlled
corporations, their subsidiaries, government financial institutions, government
corporate offspring, government instrumentalities with corporate powers, and
government-acquired asset corporations.

E. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was


created by virtue of EO 1, s. 1986. Under Sec. 2 thereof, the PCGG is charged
with the task of assisting the President regarding, among others, the recovery of
ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his
immediate family, relatives, subordinates, and close associates, whether located
in the Philippines or abroad.

The PCGG is mandated to (a) prosecute and litigate ill-gotten wealth cases,
(b) investigate cases of graft and corruption related thereto, and (c) issue
sequestration, hold and/or freeze orders, or lift the same as may be warranted.
Assets recovered by the PCGG are deposited to the Bureau of Treasury, to be
used for the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Program (CARP).

VIII. APPEAL
A. NATURE OF APPEAL; ITS PLACE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

To appeal is to ask a higher court to reverse the decision of a trial court


after final judgment or other legal ruling.31 The right to appeal is not a natural right
or part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only
in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law or rule.32

B. MODES OF APPEAL

ORDINARY APPEAL (Rule 41 [+Rule 40]*)


Rule: File notice of appeal with the court of origin
Exception: +Record on appeal in: - SpecPro (Rule 40, Section 3)
- Other cases of multiple*/separate appeals
Ex.: 1. Expropriation (Rule 67, Secs. 4, 8)
> Order of expropriation
> Judgment fixing just
compensation
2. Foreclosure (Rule 68, Secs. 2, 3)
> Judgment of foreclosure
> Order confirming sale

30 Enaje v. Ramos, 31 SCRA 141 (1970).


31 “Appeal: Law.com.” https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2412, last accessed 10 July 2018.
32 Ortiz v. CA, 299 SCRA 708 (1998).

15
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

3. Partition (Rule 69, Secs. 2, 11)33


> Order of partition
> Judgment of partition
- Several judgments (Rule 36, Section 4)
PRESCRIPTIVE Rule: 15 DAYS from notice of decision
PERIOD Exception: Where a record of appeal is req’d: 30 DAYS
Ayy lmao

MTC → RTC (Rule 40)


Here, the RTC may:
(a) AFFIRM: Rule: Declaration on merits of dismissal
Exception: If dismissal was for lack of juris. over the subject
matter:** affirm dismissal + try case on the merits
as if originally filed w/ the RTC
(b) REVERSE: Remand to MTC
[** regardless of whether by MTD or after trial on the merits (Rule 40, Sec. 8)]
RTC (original jurisdiction) → CA (R41)
Questions that can be raised on a Rule 41 appeal: (a) Fact
(b) Mixed (fact + law)
NOTES:
1. Rule 41 also covers appeals from the MTC in the exercise of delegated
jurisdiction to the CA; here, it’s just as if an RTC rendered judgment.
2. Questions of law and questions of fact, distinguished:34
QUESTION OF LAW QUESTION OF FACT
Concerning the correct application
Concerning the truth or falsehood
of law and/or jurisprudence on a
of facts
given set of facts ewqewqeqwe
Ewqewqeqwe

PETITION FOR REVIEW (Rule 42 [+Rule 43]*)


Ayy

15 DAYS from notice of decision/denial of MR


 EXTENDIBLE: +15 DAYS
(upon motion & payment of docket fees)
PRESCRIPTIVE
Q: Is further extension allowed?
PERIOD
A: Rule: NO.
Exception: Most compelling reasons;
+15 DAYS MAX
Ayy l

RTC (appellate jurisdiction) → CA (Rule 42)


Questions that can be raised on a Rule 42 petition: (a) Fact
(b) Law
(c) Mixed (fact + law)
QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES → CA (Rule 43)
Rule: Does not stay execution of award/judgment/etc. of QJBs
Exception: Where CA directs otherwise upon such terms it may deem just
(Rule 43, Sec. 12)
NOTES:
1. Re: Civil Service Commission, Energy Regulatory Commission, National
Telecommunications Commission, Office of the President, Land
Registration Authority, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, &
voluntary arbitrators authorized by law, etc. – apply Rule 43
2. COA & COMELEC, apply Rule 64
3. Re: NLRC, apply Rule 65, filed w/ CA per doctrine of hierarchy of courts35
4. Re: Ombudsman36 –
> Administrative disciplinary cases: Rule 43
In Francisco, Jr. v. Disierto, it was pointed out that the findings of the Office of
the President itself fall within the ambit of Rule 43; it simply doesn’t make any sense
for the Ombudsman’s findings to be treated differently. (A/N: Besides, a perusal of
Rule 43 would reveal that its enumeration of quasi-judicial bodies is not exclusive.)
> Criminal/non-administrative cases: Rule 65
Ayy l

33 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. CA, 198 SCRA 300 (1991).


34 Marcos-Araneta v. CA, 563 SCRA 41 (2008).
35 Note 13, supra.
36 Note 16, supra.

16
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

RESIDUAL JURISDICTION (cf. Rules 40-42): where appeal has been filed (i.e.
trial court has lost jurisdiction over the subject matter) but prior to transmittal of
original record/record on appeal, the court below may – [Mnemonic: WAPXC!]
(a) Allow withdrawal of the appeal
(b) Permit appeals of indigent litigants
(c) Issue orders for the protection & preservation of the rights of the parties
w/c do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal (e.g. appointment of
receiver, preliminary attachment/injunction)
(d) Order execution pending appeal (cf. Rule 39, Sec. 2)
(e) Approve compromises
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI (Rule 45)
Ayy

15 DAYS from notice of decision/denial of MR


PRESCRIPTIVE
 EXTENDIBLE: +30 DAYS
PERIOD
(upon motion & payment of docket fees)
Ayy l

1. RTC → SC (for pure questions of law)


2. Sandiganbayan → SC (same)
3. CTA En Banc → SC (same)37
4. CA → SC (same [Exception: amparo, habeas data, kalikasan38])
Rule: Only questions of law may be raised (as seen above)
 Why? (a) SC is not a trier of facts
(b) The trial court’s findings as affirmed by the CA are final
& conclusive; may not be reviewed on appeal
Expns.: [Aside from amparo, habeas data, and kalikasan]
(Mnemonic: [MENG-C(alle)-S(erye)]39 (a) misapprehension of facts; (b)
not based on/contrary to evidence; (c) facts not disputed; (d) GAoD; (e)
conflicting findings; (f) speculation/impossibility)
1. CA’s conclusion, grounded entirely on speculation/conjecture
2. Inference made, manifestly mistaken/absurd/impossible
3. Grave abuse of discretion
4. Judgment was based on misapprehension of facts
5. Findings of fact are conflicting
6. CA’s findings go beyond the issues; contrary to parties’ admissions
7. CA’s findings = contrary to those of the trial court
8. No citation of specific evidence on w/c findings are based
9. Facts set forth in petition, etc., not disputed by respondents
10. CA’s findings = premised on supposed lack of evidence, but are
actually contradicted by evidence on record40
* Why were Rules 40 and 43 not included in Rule 41, Sec. 2’s enumeration
on modes of appeal? That is because Rule 41, Sec. 2 talks about appeals from
the RTC, thus excluding Rules 40 (appeals from the MTC) and 43 (appeals from
quasi-judicial bodies), even if these are, technically, modes of appeal as well.

C. THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI (Rule 65)

Certiorari is a special civil action against a tribunal, board, or officer


exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions who or which is alleged in a verified
petition filed by an aggrieved party to have acted without jurisdiction or in excess
of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board, or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.41

As can be gleaned above, the requisites for a petition for certiorari are:

1. A tribunal/board/officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions

37 R.A. 9282, Sec. 11; see also Rule 16, Sec. 1, Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals.
38 Sec. 19 of both Rules for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data and Sec. 16 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases provide that a Rule 45 petition on the issuance of the writ may also raise questions.
39 This is by no means an admission that the writer of this handout followed the Kalye-Serye in its heyday.
40 Safeguard Security v. Tangco, 511 SCRA 67 (2006).
41 Rule 65, Sec. 1, Rules of Court; see Agranzamendez, Questions and Answers in Remedial Law, 1st ed., p. 212.

17
JURISDICTION AND MODES OF APPEAL (Training and Development Section, HRMD, v. 2018)

2. Said tribunal, etc. acted:


(a) Without or in excess of its jurisdiction; or
(b) With GAoD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
3. There is no:
(a) Appeal; or
(b) Plain, speedy, & adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law

The “any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy” requirement makes a


motion for reconsideration a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for
certiorari. This rule, however, is not without exceptions, viz.:

1. The order is a patent nullity (e.g. court a quo has no jurisdiction)


2. The questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those
raised and passed upon in the lower court
3. Urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay
would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or
the subject matter of the action is perishable
4. MR would be useless under the circumstances
5. Petitioner = deprived of due process; there is extreme urgency for relief
6. In criminal cases, where relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the
granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable
7. The proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process
8. The proceedings = ex parte (i.e. petitioner had no opportunity to object)
9. Issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved42

An original action for certiorari may not be filed later than 60 DAYS from
notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed (except when the
judgment, etc. to be assailed is that of COMELEC or COA [Rule 64],43 in which
case the prescriptive period is, generally, 30 DAYS).

A petition for certiorari should be:

1. Verified; and
2. Accompanied by:
(a) A certified true copy of the judgment, etc. subject thereof;
(b) Copies of all pleadings/documents relevant & pertinent thereto; and
(c) A sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

A Rule 65 petition may be distinguished from a Rule 45 one as follows:

R45 R65
Petition for review on certiorari Petition for certiorari
Findings of fact by CA = conclusive Not so in R65 actions
Involves questions of law Involves questions of jurisdiction
Either (a) vs. interlocutory orders; or
Review of judgments/FOs/resolutions
(b) when these is no appeal or any
of CA/CTA/SB/RTC/other courts
other plain/speedy/adequate remedy
15-day period 60-day period (see exception above)
The appellant & the appellee remain Judge, court, etc. shall be public
the original parties to the action respondents impleaded in the action
MR/NT = not condition sine qua non MR/NT = condition sine qua non
(see exceptions above)
SC/RTC/SB/COMELEC/etc. exercises
SC exercises appellate jurisdiction
original jurisdiction

ejdc-jurisdiction

42 Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., 638 SCRA 457 (2010).
43 The mode by which a judgment or final order or resolution of COMELEC and COA may be revised is via special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 to be filed with the SC (see Rule 64, Secs. 1 and 2, Rules of Court).

18