Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appeals Doctrines
Appeals Doctrines
Appeals
Dacquital v. LM Engineering Corporation
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; While the right to appeal is a statutory
and not a natural right, it is
nonetheless an essential part of our judicial system; Litigants should have the
amplest opportunity for the
proper and just disposition of their cause—free, as much as possible, from the
constraints of procedural
technicalities.—The NLRC properly took cognizance of the appeal of all the named
complainants even though
it was signed by only one of them. While the right to appeal is a statutory and not
a natural right, it is
nonetheless an essential part of our judicial system. Courts are, therefore,
advised to proceed with caution,
so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. Litigants should have the
amplest opportunity for the
proper and just disposition of their cause—free, as much as possible, from the
constraints of procedural
technicalities. Thus, contrary to respondents’ claim, the decision had not attained
finality even as to those
who did not sign the appeal memorandum. Dacuital vs. L.M. Camus Engineering
Corporation, 629 SCRA 702,
G.R. No. 176748 September 1, 2010
Neypes v. CA
Remedial Law; Appeals; The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a 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 law.—
First and foremost, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a 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 law.
Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the
requirements of the Rules. Failure
to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. The period to appeal is
fixed by both statute and
procedural rules.
Same; Same; An appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or
final order appealed
from.—Based on the foregoing, an appeal should be taken within 15 days from the
notice of judgment or
final order appealed from. A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes
of a case, leaving nothing
more for the court to do with respect to it. It is an adjudication on the merits
which, considering the evidence
presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of
the parties are; or it may be
an order or judgment that dismisses an action.
REMEDIAL LAW | HAO
Same; Same; Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within
which to file the notice of
appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a
motion for a new trial or
motion for reconsideration to standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules.
—To standardize the
appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to
appeal their cases, the Court
deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the
notice of appeal in the Regional
Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial
or motion for
reconsideration. Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, 469 SCRA 633, G.R. No. 141524
September 14, 2005
Ong v. Tating
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeal; Correct mode of appeal from a judgment
rendered by the CFI (RTC).—
A "petition for review" is the correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by a
CFI (RTC) in the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, i.e., when it decides a case appealed to it from the
inferior court. In such a case, the
appeal is not a matter of right, its acceptance being discretionary on the Court of
Appeals, which "may give
it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact
or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed." On
the other hand, when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, the correct
mode of elevating the judgment to the Court of Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or
appeal by writ of error,
involving merely the filing of a notice of appeal—except only if the appeal is
taken in special proceedings and
other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under the law, in which event the
filing of a record on
appeal is additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely
questions of law or any of
the other cases (except criminal cases as stated hereunder) specified in Section
5(2), Article X of the
Constitution, it should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with
Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court. However, in criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment, the appeal to the Supreme Court is by ordinary appeal on both
questions of fact and law.
In cases where the death penalty is imposed, there is an automatic review by the
Supreme Court. (Sec. 3 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure) Ong vs. Tating, 149 SCRA 265, No. L-61042
April 15, 1987
UMC v. Velasco
Cheesman v. IAC
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeal; Correct mode of appeal from a judgment
rendered by the CFI (RTC).—
A "petition for review" is the correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by a
CFI (RTC) in the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, i.e., when it decides a case appealed to it from the
inferior court. In such a case, the
appeal is not a matter of right, its acceptance being discretionary on the Court of
Appeals, which "may give
it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact
or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed." On
the other hand, when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, the correct
mode of elevating the judgment to the Court of Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or
appeal by writ of error,
involving merely the filing of a notice of appeal—except only if the appeal is
taken in special proceedings and
REMEDIAL LAW | HAO
other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under the law, in which event the
filing of a record on
appeal is additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely
questions of law or any of
the other cases (except criminal cases as stated hereunder) specified in Section
5(2), Article X of the
Constitution, it should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with
Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court. However, in criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment, the appeal to the Supreme Court is by ordinary appeal on both
questions of fact and law.
In cases where the death penalty is imposed, there is an automatic review by the
Supreme Court. (Sec. 3 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure)
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeal; Correct mode of appeal from a judgment
rendered by the CFI (RTC).—
A "petition for review" is the correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by a
CFI (RTC) in the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, i.e., when it decides a case appealed to it from the
inferior court. In such a case, the
appeal is not a matter of right, its acceptance being discretionary on the Court of
Appeals, which "may give
it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact
or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed." On
the other hand, when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, the correct
mode of elevating the judgment to the Court of Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or
appeal by writ of error,
involving merely the filing of a notice of appeal—except only if the appeal is
taken in special proceedings and
other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under the law, in which event the
filing of a record on
appeal is additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely
questions of law or any of
the other cases (except criminal cases as stated hereunder) specified in Section
5(2), Article X of the
Constitution, it should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with
Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court. However, in criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment, the appeal to the Supreme Court is by ordinary appeal on both
questions of fact and law.
In cases where the death penalty is imposed, there is an automatic review by the
Supreme Court. (Sec. 3 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure) Ong vs. Tating, 149 SCRA 265, No. L-61042
April 15, 1987
Sumbingco v. CA
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeal; Correct mode of appeal from a judgment
rendered by the CFI (RTC).—
A "petition for review" is the correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by a
CFI (RTC) in the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, i.e., when it decides a case appealed to it from the
inferior court. In such a case, the
appeal is not a matter of right, its acceptance being discretionary on the Court of
Appeals, which "may give
it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact
or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed." On
the other hand, when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, the correct
mode of elevating the judgment to the Court of Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or
appeal by writ of error,
involving merely the filing of a notice of appeal—except only if the appeal is
taken in special proceedings and
other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under the law, in which event the
filing of a record on
appeal is additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely
questions of law or any of
the other cases (except criminal cases as stated hereunder) specified in Section
5(2), Article X of the
Constitution, it should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with
REMEDIAL LAW | HAO
Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court. However, in criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment, the appeal to the Supreme Court is by ordinary appeal on both
questions of fact and law.
In cases where the death penalty is imposed, there is an automatic review by the
Supreme Court. (Sec. 3 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure)
Same; Same; Same; Questions of Law; Questions of Fact; The test of whether a
question is one of law or of
fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same;
rather, it is whether the
appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the
evidence, in which case,
it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.—A question of law
arises when there is doubt as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when
the doubt arises as to the
truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same
must not involve an examination
of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.
The resolution of the issue
must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once
it is clear that the issue
invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.
Thus, the test of whether a
question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by
the party raising the same;
rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without
reviewing or evaluating the
evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of
fact. Land Bank of the Philippines
vs. Ramos, 685 SCRA 540, G.R. No. 181664 November 14, 2012