CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

21
the CA without prejudice to the filing of the same with the SC later. So, this is 100% issue of jurisdiction.
No factual issue is involved.

d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

We discussed this in Criminal Procedure.

e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

Take note that ONLY an error or question of law is involved. So, if there is a mixed question of law and a
question of fact, appeal must be filed with the CA. You only go to the SC if the appeal is 100% legal. That
applies to both criminal and civil cases.

QUESTIONS OF LAW and QUESTIONS OF FACT

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of
facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the
alleged facts (Sps. Santos vs. CA 337 SCRA 67).

Example: Where the question is whether or not the debtor has paid the debt, the issue is one of fact.
Where the question is whether or not the manner of payment is of the type which produces the legal
effect of extinguishing the obligation, the issue becomes one of law. Also, when under the set of facts
the issue is whether or not the law on double sales applies, there is a question of law.

When the issue involves a review of the evidence, it involves a question of fact because evidence, as
defined, is the means, sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1 Rule 128)

In an action for declaration of nullity of marriage the basis is psychological incapacity. The RTC/Family
Court dismissed the case finding that there was no psychological incapacity. If the plaintiff wants to
appeal from that judgment, can she appeal directly to the SC? Is it a question of fact or law?

No. The appeal should be to the CA. The issue raised is a question of fact because there is need to
review the evidence to resolve it.

Suppose the court nullified the marriage on ground of impotence and the defendant wants to appeal
because he wants to raise the issue whether or not impotence is a ground for declaration of nullity of
marriage this would be a question of law because there is no need for review of the evidence to resolve
it. So appeal is to the SC.

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Article IX, Section 7, paragraph (a), 1987 Constitution:

“Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote x x x. Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.”

The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act also as courts of justice. They have powers to decide certain cases
within their jurisdiction. Election cases are covered by the COMELEC, claims against the government, by
COA and eligibility or removal from government service of an appointive employee, by CSC.

Now, according to Section 7, any decision, order or ruling of these commissions may be brought to the
SC on certiorari, etc. So you will see that the decisions of the constitutional commissions are reviewable
by the SC.

However, Congress amended the Judiciary Law particularly Section 9 on the jurisdiction of the CA by
now making decisions of the CSC no longer appealable to the SC directly but appealable to the CA. So
based on the present law, out of the three constitutional commissions, the only ones whose decisions
are appealable directly to the SC are those of the COMELEC and the COA

What is the basis for Congress to pass such a law where a decision of a constitutional body (CSC) is
reviewable by a non-constitutional body?

Under the Constitution, decisions of the constitutional commissions are appealable to the SC. Does
Congress have the power to change that by making it appealable to the CA?

Yes because the provision, it says: “Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law..” Meaning,
the decisions are appealable to the SC unless otherwise provided by law. The Constitution itself gave
Congress the power to change it.

SC as Presidential Electoral Tribunal

Article VII, Section 4, last paragraph, 1987 Constitution:

“The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.”

If there’s an electoral protest for the President and Vice-President, the matter is not to be decided by
the COMELEC but by the SC acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.

Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamation of Martial or Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus

Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987 Constitution – Commander-in-Chief Clause