NHA VS.

ROXAS, 06 APRIL 2011

DOCTRINE: Section 3, Rule 46, of the Rules of Court, supra, expressly

provides that: "The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition"

FACTS:

In the dismissed case filed by NHA before the RTC NHA filed a notice of
appeal seeking to elevate the dismissal for review by the CA. However, the
RTC dismissed the appeal, pointing out that NHA had only a day left within
which to file its notice of appeal.

NHA filed a petition for certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion. The
CA summarily dismissed the petition for certiorari because of the failure of
NHA to attach to the petition the certified true copies of all the relevant
pleadings and documents.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA properly dismissed the case?

RULING:

Yes, The omission was fatal to the petition for certiorari of NHA. Section 3,
Rule 46, of the Rules of Court, supra, expressly provides that: "The failure
of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition" Dismissal of the petition
was the recourse of the CA, because the requirements imposed by the
Rules of Court were not to be lightly treated or disregarded due to the
omitted documents being essential in a special civil action for certiorari, a
proceeding by which a superior court determines whether the respondent
court or judge acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
LASAM V. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, DECEMBER 5, 2018

DOCTRINE: A petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings

is an equitable remedy which is allowed only in exceptional
circumstances. As an equitable remedy, strict compliance with the
applicable reglementary periods for its filing must be satisfactorily shown
because a petition for relief from judgment is a final act of liberality on the
part of the State, which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any further the
fundamental principle that a judgment, order, or proceeding must, at some
definite time, attain finality in order to put an end to litigation.

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, Order, or Other

Proceedings before the RTC, but the RTC denied the same as the motion
was not seasonably filed.

ISSUE:

Whether the petition is properly dismissed?

RULING:

Yes, Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for
relief from judgment must be filed within: (1) 60 days from knowledge of the
judgment, order or other proceeding to be set aside; and (2) six months
from the entry of such judgment, order or other proceeding. These two
periods must concur. Further, these periods could not be extended and
could never be interrupted.

As an equitable remedy, strict compliance with the applicable reglementary

periods for its filing must be satisfactorily shown because a petition for relief
from judgment is a final act of liberality on the part of the State, which
remedy cannot be allowed to erode any further the fundamental principle
that a judgment, order, or proceeding must, at some definite time, attain
finality in order to put an end to litigation. 26 As such, it is incumbent upon
the petitioner to show that the petition was filed within its reglementary
periods, otherwise, the petition may be dismissed outright.
PURCON V. MRM PHILIPPINES, INC., SEPTEMBER 26, 2008

DOCTRINE: A PETITION for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in
exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy. It
may be availed of only after a judgment, final order, or other proceeding
was taken against petitioner in any court through fraud, accident, mistake,
or excusable negligence.

FACTS:

The labor case filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, it
reached the CA but was denied and the resolution became final and
executory. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari but was also denied,
hence he filed a petition from relief from judgment.

ISSUE: Can petitioner avail of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule
38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure from resolution denying his petition
for review?

RULING:

A petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy in the

Supreme Court. In Dela Cruz v. Andres, 10 it was reiterated in
pronouncement in Mesina v. Meer, 11 that a petition for relief from judgment
is not an available remedy in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
The Court explained that under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,
the petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after petitioner
learns of the judgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside and
must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake,
or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting petitioner’s
good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. Most
importantly, it should be filed with the same court which rendered the
decision.
MADARANG V. MORALES, JUNE 9, 2014

DOCTRINE: If the petition for relief is filed on the ground of excusable

negligence of counsel, parties must show that their counsel’s negligence
could not have been prevented using ordinary diligence and prudence.

FACTS:

On September 24, 2010,defendants filed a petition for relief from

judgment,16 blaming their 80-year-old lawyer who failed to file the notice of
appeal within the reglementary period. They argued that Atty. Tugonon’s
failure to appeal within the reglementary period was a mistake and an
excusable negligence due to their former lawyer’s old age:

ISSUE:

Whether the petition for relief from judgment may be granted based on the
ground provided?

RULING:

A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable relief granted only under
exceptional circumstances.1 To set aside a judgment through a petition for
relief, parties must file the petition within 60 days from notice of the
judgment and within six (6) months after the judgment or final order was
entered; otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed outright.

If the petition for relief is filed on the ground of excusable negligence of

counsel, parties must show that their counsel’s negligence could not have
been prevented using ordinary diligence and prudence. 2 The mere
allegation that there is excusable negligence simply because counsel was
80 years old is a prejudicial slur to senior citizens. It is based on an
unwarranted stereotype of people in their advanced years. It is as empty as
the bigotry that supports it.
ESTRELLADO V. PRESIDING JUDGE OF MTCC, NOVEMBER 8, 2017

DOCTRINE: A petition for the annulment of a judgment is a remedy in

equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other
remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final
resolution sought to be annulled was rendered without jurisdiction or
through extrinsic fraud. The remedy is not available as a recourse to obtain
relief from a judgment that has long attained finality after having been
passed upon and affirmed by the higher court on appeal taken in due
course.

FACTS:

By decision dated June 28, 2000, 11 and another decision dated January 24,
2003,12 the CA dismissed the appeals and affirmed the decision of the
RTC.13 Considering that the Estrellados did not thereafter appeal, the
decisions of the CA became final and executory. 14 On October 7, 2003,
upon motion, the MTCC issued the writ of execution to enforce the
judgment.

In the instant civil case the petitioner sought for the annulment of the
judgment

ISSUE: Whether the case may be annulled?

RULING:

A petition for the annulment of a judgment is a remedy in equity so

exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies
are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought
to be annulled was rendered without jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.
The remedy is not available as a recourse to obtain relief from a judgment
that has long attained finality after having been passed upon and affirmed
by the higher court on appeal taken in due course.
ENCARNACION V. JOHNSON, JULY 11, 2018

FACTS:

Petitioner filed before the court a petition for annulment of judgment. He

alleged that he is the owner of 18 properties levied in Civil Case No. 110-0-
2003; that he was not made a party to the case; and that the inclusion of
his properties in the levy and execution sale were made without notice to
him.28 Mateo, nonetheless, admitted before the CA that he has no standing
to question the proceedings on the action for recognition and enforcement
of judgment. He asserts that he is only questioning the February 17, 2005
Order which deprived him of his properties.

ISSUE:

Whether petition for annulment of judgment may be granted?

RULING:

There are requirements that must be complied with before the remedy is
granted. First, the remedy is only available when the petitioner can no
longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief,
or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner. Second,
the ground for the remedy is limited to either extrinsic fraud or lack of
jurisdiction (although lack of due process has been cited as a ground by
jurisprudence). Third, the time for availing the remedy is set by the rules: if
based on extrinsic fraud, it must be filed within four years from the
discovery of extrinsic fraud; if based on lack of jurisdiction, it must be
brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel. Fourth, the petition should
be verified and should allege with particularity the facts and law relied
upon, and those supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of
action or defense.

Petitioners failed to show their standing to file the petition. They have also
failed to comply with the first requirement.
TORTAL V. TANIGUCHI, NOVEMBER 12, 2018

DOCTRINE: An allegation of a trial court's lack of jurisdiction to render the

assailed judgment, final order, or resolution must be brought in a separate
action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure.

FACTS:

In the instant case petitioner Jerson E. Tortal (Tortal) assailed judgments

upheld the Regional Trial Court October 28, 2011 Decision, which annulled
the levy and sale of a house and lot covered by a compromise agreement
between Tortal and Sevillana P. Sales (Sales) and annulling his marriage
on the ground that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over his person.

ISSUE:

Whether the remedy availed of is proper?

RULING:

No, Petitioner claims that he failed to participate in the proceedings for the
nullity of his marriage with respondent before Branch 260, Regional Trial
Court, Parañaque City because summons was never served on him, either
personally or by substitution.32

If indeed summons was not properly served on petitioner, then his remedy
was to file a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure. An action for the annulment of judgment is an equitable
recourse that is independent of the case and is allowed only in exceptional
cases, such as when there is no more available or other adequate remedy.
JOSE VS. JAVELLANA, 25 JANUARY 2012

DOCTRINE: The denial of a motion for reconsideration of an order granting

the defending party’s motion to dismiss is not an interlocutory but a final
order because it puts an end to the particular matter involved, or settles
definitely the matter therein disposed of, as to leave nothing for the trial
court to do other than to execute the order. [1] Accordingly, the claiming
party has a fresh period of 15 days from notice of the denial within which to
appeal the denial.[2]

FACTS:

In the case before the RTC between the petitioner and respondent, the
RTC denied the opining that Javellana had no cause of action. The motion
for reconsideration filed was also denied by the RTC. Hence, the case was
appealed before the CA which set aside the decision of the RTC and
remanded back the case.

Priscilla then brought this appeal, averring that the CA thereby erred in not
outrightly dismissing Javellana’s appeal because: (a) the June 21, 2000
RTC order was not appealable.

ISSUE:

Whether the case is not appealable?

RULING

The denial of Javellana’s motion for reconsideration left nothing more to be

done by the RTC because it confirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 79-
M-97. It was clearly a final order, not an interlocutory one.
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION VS. RIZAL POULTRY, 01
JUNE 2011
DOCTRINE: Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior
judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil
Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c).

There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the
judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred,
there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

Where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no
identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those
matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to
matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known
as "conclusiveness of judgment." 

The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new
action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the
disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there
must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject
matter, and causes of action.

FACTS:
The instant case stemmed from a petition filed by Alberto Angeles
(Angeles) before the Social Security Commission (SSC) to compel
respondents Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc. (Rizal Poultry) or
BSD Agro Industrial Development Corporation (BSD Agro) to remit to the
Social Security System (SSS) all contributions due for and in his behalf.
Respondents countered with a Motion to Dismiss [3] citing rulings of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Court of Appeals
regarding the absence of employer-employee relationship between
Angeles and the respondents, invoking the principle of res judicata.

ISSUE:
Whether res judicata applies?

RULING:

In the instant case, therefore, res judicata in the concept of "conclusiveness

of judgment" applies.  The judgment in the NLRC case pertaining to a
finding of an absence of employer-employee relationship between Angeles
and respondents is conclusive on the SSC case.
ABRIGO VS. FLORES, 17 JUNE 2013

DOCTRINE: Once a judgment becomes immutable and unalterable by

virtue of its finality, its execution should follow as a matter of course. A
supervening event, to be sufficient to stay or stop the execution, must alter
or modify the situation of the parties under the decision as to render the
execution inequitable, impossible, or unfair. The supervening event cannot
rest on unproved or uncertain facts.

FACTS:

The parties initiated a partition of the parcel of land. Upon survey and
subdivision of the land it was found that certain improvements made by the
petitioner encroached the portion belonging to the respondent. The court
required them to be removed.

Petitioners moved for the deferment of the execution arguing that after the
finality of the decision and on this stage of execution thereof, there was an
event and circumstance which took place between the defendants and one
of the groups of plaintiffs (Floreses) which would render the enforcement of
the execution unjust. Insisting that being now one of the co-owners of the
western half, there is need to defer action of the motion for demolition until
the parties in the co-ownership of said half shall have decided in a formal
partition which portion thereof belongs to each of them.

ISSUE:

Whether the execution may be deferred?

RULING:

No, Although it is true that there are recognized exceptions to the execution
as a matter of right of a final and immutable judgment, one of which is a
supervening event, such circumstance did not obtain herein. To accept
their contention would be to reopen the final and immutable judgment in
order to further partition the western portion thereby adjudicated to the
heirs and successors-in-interest of Francisco Faylona for the purpose of
segregating the ¼ portion supposedly subject of the sale by Jimmy Flores.
The reopening would be legally impermissible, considering that the
November 20, 1989 decision, as modified by the CA, could no longer be
altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or
modification was meant to correct what was perceived to be an erroneous
conclusion of fact or of law and regardless of what court, be it the highest
Court of the land, rendered it. 8 This is pursuant to the doctrine of
immutability of a final judgment, which may be relaxed only to serve the
ends of substantial justice in order to consider certain circumstances like:
(a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or
compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) the cause not
being entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by
the suspension of the doctrine; (e) the lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; or (f) the other party will not be
unjustly prejudiced by the suspension.
CRUZ VS. MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 09 SEPTEMBER 2013

DOCTRINE: An appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from
the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the
decision of the court below. He cannot impugn the correctness of a
judgment not appealed from by him. He cannot assign such errors as are
designed to have the judgment modified. All that said appellee can do is to
make a counter-assignment of errors or to argue on issues raised at the
trial only for the purpose of sustaining the judgment in his favor, even on
grounds not included in the decision of the court a quo nor raised in the
appellant's assignment of errors or arguments.

FACTS:

Herein petitioner appealed the decision of the RTC dismissing the case he
filed against the respondent. The respondent argued in its brief that the
case was filed in an improper venue, which the CA entertained and based
the dismissal of the case on it.

Petitioner appealed the decision of the CA arguing that it may only resolve
errors assigned by the appellant and, conversely, cannot rule on a distinct
issue raised by the appellee.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA properly dismissed the case?

RULING

No, Jurisprudence dictates that the appellee’s role in the appeal process is
confined only to the task of refuting the assigned errors interposed by the
appellant. Since the appellee is not the party who instituted the appeal and
accordingly has not complied with the procedure prescribed therefor, he
merely assumes a defensive stance and his interest solely relegated to the
affirmance of the judgment appealed from. Keeping in mind that the right to
appeal is essentially statutory in character, it is highly erroneous for the
appellee to either assign any error or seek any affirmative relief or
modification of the lower court’s judgment without interposing its own
appeal.
MACASLANG VS. ZAMORA, 30 MAY 2011

DOCTRINE: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) is not limited in its review of
the decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to the issues assigned by
the appellant, but can decide on the basis of the entire records of the
proceedings of the trial court and such memoranda or briefs as may be
submitted by the parties or required by the RTC.

FACTS:

The case between the instant parties was appealed form the MTC to the
RTC. However, the RTC decided the case not only based on the
memorandum but based on the whole record of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its Appellate
Jurisdiction is limited to the assigned errors in the Memorandum or brief
filed before it or whether it can decide the case based on the entire records
of the case?

RULING:

Petitioner’s appeal herein,being taken from the decision of the MTCC to the
RTC, was governed by a different rule, specifically Section 18 of Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court, to wit:

The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional

Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record of
the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial
Court. (7a)

As such,the RTC, in exercising appellate jurisdiction,was not limited to the

errors assigned in the petitioner’s appeal memorandum, but coulddecide on
the basis of the entire record of the proceedingshad in the trial court and
such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
required by the RTC.
REPUBLIC V. BANAL NA PAG-AARAL, INC., FEBRUARY 5, 2018

DOCTRINE: Under Section 9 of Batas Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No.

7902, the CA has the power to receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues. However, in case of appeals, this
authority is limited to instances where the CA has granted a new trial.

FACTS:

The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Banal na Pag-aaral, Inc.'s (Banal na

Pag-aaral) application for land registration on the ground of its failure to
prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable. In
the motion for reconsideration the respondent submitted a certification by
the DENR that the land is alienable. Hence, the CA reversed its previous
ruling.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA may resolve factual issues?

RULING:

Under Section 9 of Batas Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7902, the CA
has the power to receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary
to resolve factual issues. However, in case of appeals, this authority is
limited to instances where the CA has granted a new trial. 5 In other words,
the CA cannot unqualifiedly admit evidence on appeal, as it did with the
document in question. The rule is that, evidence which has not been
formally offered shall not be considered. 6 Nevertheless, the Court, in the
interest of justice and only for the most meritorious of reasons, has allowed
the submission of certification in petitions of this kind, after the parties were
granted the opportunity to verify the authenticity and due execution of such
document.
HEIRS OF GARCIA VS. MUNICIPALITY OF IBA, 22 JULY 2015

FACTS:

Petitioner filed an ejectment case against the respondent which the MTC
ruled in favor. Thus, a petition for certiorari was filed before the RTC, the
petition was granted. Aggrieved petitioners appealed to the CA by petition
for review under Rule 42.

The CA dismissed the case for not being the proper mode of appeal. The
appeal should be under Rule 41.

ISSUE:

Whether the appeal was properly dismissed?

RULING:

An appeal brings up for review any error of judgment committed by a court

with jurisdiction over the subject of the suit and over the persons of the
parties, or any error committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction
amounting to nothing more than an error of judgment. 9 It was, therefore,
very crucial for the petitioners and their counsel to have been cognizant of
the different modes to appeal the adverse decision of the RTC in the
special civil action for certiorari brought by the Municipality of Iba. Such
modes of appeal were well delineated in the Rules of Court, and have been
expressly stated in Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court since July 1,
1997,10 to wit:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
hanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 2. Modes of appeal.—

(a) Ordinary appeal.— The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided

by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which
rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy
thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required
except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate
appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record
on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

(b) Petition for review.— The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases

decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.

(c) Appeal by certiorari.—In all cases where only questions of law are

raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition
for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. (n)
NARRA NICKEL MINING VS. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED, 09
DECEMBER 2015

DOCTRINE: The jurisdictional parameter that the appeal be taken

against a judgment, final order, resolution or award of a "quasi-judicial
agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions" is explicitly stated
in Section 1 of the Rule 43

FACTS:

In the instant case the Office of the President ruled in favor of the
respondent pursuant to its authority to cancel the FTAA under RA 7942 or
the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

Petitioners appealed the case to the CA via Rule 43. The CA took
cognizance of the appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether the appeal was proper?

RULING:

No. The OP's cancellation and/or revocation of the FTAA is obviously

not an "adjudication" in the sense above-described. It cannot be
likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial
agency or office. The OP - at the instance of Redmont at that - was
exercising an administrative function pursuant to the President's
authority43 to invoke the Republic's right under paragraph a (iii), Section
17.2 of the FTAA
RE: LETTER COMPLAINT OF FABIANA, 02 JULY 2013

FACTS:

In the case decided by the NLRC the two parties filed their separation
petition for certiorari before the CA.

On August 20, 2009, when the heirs of Fabiana filed their comment vis-à-
vis the second petition, they sought the consolidation of the two petitions.
Their request for consolidation was not acted upon, however, but was soon
mooted a month later by the First Division of the CA promulgating its
decision on the first petition (C.A.-G.R. No. 109382) on September 29,
2009

ISSUE:

Whether the two cases should have been consolidated?

RULING:

The consolidation of two or more actions is authorized where the cases

arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like
issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided
that the court has jurisdiction and that consolidation will not give one party
an undue advantage or that consolidation will not prejudice the substantial
rights of any of the parties. 18 As to parties, their substantial identity will
suffice. Substantial identity of parties exists when there is a community of
interest or privity of interest between a party in the first case and a party in
the second, even if the latter has not been impleaded in the first case. 19 As
to issues, what is required is mere identity of issues where the parties,
although not identical, present conflicting claims. 20 The justification for
consolidation is to prevent a judge from deciding identical issues presented
in the case assigned to him in a manner that will prejudice another judge
from deciding a similar case before him.

It is true that under the Rules of Court, 21 the consolidation of cases for trial
is permissive and a matter of judicial discretion. 22 This is because trials held
in the first instance require the attendance of the parties, their respective
counsel and their witnesses, a task that surely entails an expense that can
multiply if there are several proceedings upon the same issues involving
the same parties. At the trial stage, the avoidance of unnecessary
expenses and undue vexation to the parties is the primary objective of
consolidation of cases.23 But the permissiveness of consolidation does not
carry over to the appellate stage where the primary objective is less the
avoidance of unnecessary expenses and undue vexation than it is the ideal
realization of the dual function of all appellate adjudications. 

HEIRS OF GARCIA VS. MUNICIPALITY OF IBA, 22 JULY 2015

FACTS:

Petitioner filed an ejectment case against the respondent which the MTC
ruled in favor. Thus, a petition for certiorari was filed before the RTC, the
petition was granted. Aggrieved petitioners appealed to the CA by petition
for review under Rule 42.

The CA dismissed the case for not being the proper mode of appeal. The
appeal should be under Rule 41.

ISSUE:

Whether the appeal was properly dismissed?

RULING:

An appeal brings up for review any error of judgment committed by a court

with jurisdiction over the subject of the suit and over the persons of the
parties, or any error committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction
amounting to nothing more than an error of judgment. 9 It was, therefore,
very crucial for the petitioners and their counsel to have been cognizant of
the different modes to appeal the adverse decision of the RTC in the
special civil action for certiorari brought by the Municipality of Iba. Such
modes of appeal were well delineated in the Rules of Court, and have been
expressly stated in Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court since July 1,
1997,10 to wit:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
hanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 2. Modes of appeal.—

(a) Ordinary appeal.— The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided

by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which
rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy
thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required
except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate
appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record
on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

(b) Petition for review.— The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases

decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.
(c) Appeal by certiorari.—In all cases where only questions of law are
raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition
for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. (n)

MACASLANG VS. ZAMORA, 30 MAY 2011

DOCTRINE: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) is not limited in its review of
the decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to the issues assigned by
the appellant, but can decide on the basis of the entire records of the
proceedings of the trial court and such memoranda or briefs as may be
submitted by the parties or required by the RTC.

FACTS:

The case between the instant parties was appealed form the MTC to the
RTC. However, the RTC decided the case not only based on the
memorandum but based on the whole record of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its Appellate
Jurisdiction is limited to the assigned errors in the Memorandum or brief
filed before it or whether it can decide the case based on the entire records
of the case?

RULING:

Petitioner’s appeal herein,being taken from the decision of the MTCC to the
RTC, was governed by a different rule, specifically Section 18 of Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court, to wit:

The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional

Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record of
the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial
Court. (7a)

As such,the RTC, in exercising appellate jurisdiction,was not limited to the

errors assigned in the petitioner’s appeal memorandum, but coulddecide on
the basis of the entire record of the proceedingshad in the trial court and
such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
required by the RTC.
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION V. F. FRANCO
TRANSPORT, INC., NOVEMBER 21, 2018

DOCTRINE: The determination of whether or not a case is appealable

pertains to the appellate court.

FACTS:

The appeal arose from the denial of notice of appeal filed by the RTC
ratiocinating that the petitioner had no right to appeal inasmuch as the final
order of the court which completely disposed of the case was its 7 August
2001 Order granting private respondent's petition for the issuance of a writ
of possession, and not its 26 February 2007 Order. The lower court further
emphasized that the 26 February 2007 Order could not be the subject of
any appeal since its issuance was merely incidental to the execution of a
final order.

ISSUE: Whether the court properly dismissed the case?

RULING:

No, Although the power to dismiss an appeal exists in both the trial and the
appellate courts, the only difference being in the time and the reason for
the exercise of the power.

Section 13,14 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court empowers the RTC to dismiss

appeals by notice of appeal, but such dismissal is based on only two
grounds, namely: (a) the appeal is taken out of time; or (b) the non-
payment of the docket and other fees within the reglementary period. The
competence of the RTC as the court of origin to dismiss the appeal is
limited to said instances.
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CARPIO, FEBRUARY
1, 2017

DOCTRINE: It is clear that before the trial court can be said to have
residual jurisdiction over a case, a trial on the merits must have been
conducted; the court rendered judgment; and the aggrieved party appealed
therefrom.

FACTS:

Respondent Abad in his complaint prayed for the issuance of the writ of
seizure, for the delivery of the certificate of title claimed to be unlawfully
detained by the petitioner. After the issuance of writ of seizure, the
petitioner moved for the dismissal of the case for improper venue, which
was granted.

In view of the non-delivery of the certificates by Abad, the petitioner filed for
motion to call on plaintiff’s surety bond. The RTC denied the motion
explaining it is no longer part of its residual power?

ISSUE:

Whether the motion is no longer part of the court’s residual power?

RULING:

In this case, there was no trial on the merits as the case was dismissed due
to improper venue and respondents could not have appealed the order of
dismissal as the same was a dismissal, without prejudice. Section 1(h),
Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that no appeal may be taken
from an order dismissing an action without prejudice. Indeed, there is no
residual jurisdiction to speak of where no appeal has even been filed.