CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

25
already modified in the St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC case.) Also, decisions of the Secretary of
Labor, under the Labor Code are not reviewable by the CA, but they are reviewable directly by the SC.

And then there is the phrase, "the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third
paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.”

So, the new Judiciary Law still makes some reference to the old law. This shows that the entire 1948
Judiciary Law has not been totally repealed. Some provisions are still intact because of the reference.

Now what is this subparagraph 1 of the third paragraph?

It only applies to criminal cases. EXAMPLE: A person is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, his co-
accused is sentenced to reclusion temporal or prison mayor, and all of them will appeal, all of them
should go to the SC. Otherwise, you will be splitting the appeal into two parts. (Modified in the People
vs Mateo case as discussed in Criminal Procedure.)

Subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 refers to appeal from the RTC on pure legal
question which should be filed with the SC.

Q: Suppose there are questions of fact, or it is an appeal on questions of fact and questions of law?

A: Under the 1948 Judiciary Law, you cannot appeal directly to the SC. You must appeal to the CA.

The same thing when the issue is on the constitutionality of a treaty, law, legality of tax, when the
jurisdiction of the lower court is in issue, as explained here in this paragraph of the Judiciary Act of
1948, if the appeal is 100% constitutional issue, jurisdictional or legality issue – appeal is to the SC
under the Constitution. But if it is mixed with questions of fact, do not go to the SC. You go first to the
CA. That is what the paragraph is all about.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts (Sec.
9[3] BP Blg. 129).

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review from the RTC rendered by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 22 BP Blg. 129; Rule 43, Rules of Court; Sec. 9 BP Blg. 129)

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolutions or orders
or awards of the CSC, Central Board of Assessment Appeals and other bodies mentioned in Rule 43
(Sec. 9[3]), BP Blg. 129) and of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases
(Enemecio vs. Office of the Ombudsman 419 SCRA 82; Gonzales vs. Rosas 423 SCRA 488).

Note that under RA No. 9282, the judgments AND FINAL ORDERS OF THE Court of Tax Appeals are no
longer appealable by way of petition for review to the CA. Judgments of the CTA rendered en banc are
appealable to the SC by way of Rule 45 (Sec. 11 RA No. 9282)

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant
to its delegated jurisdiction (Sec. 34 BP Blg. 129 as amended by RA No. 7691). This is because decisions
of MTCs in these cases cases are appealable in the same manner as decisions of RTCs (Sec. 34 BP Blg.
129).
Power to try and conduct hearings

[4] Section 9, last paragraph, BP 129:

The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original
and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings.
Trials or hearings in the CA must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months unless
extended by the Chief Justice. (As amended by RA 7902)

Even if the CA is not a trial court, under the law it has the power to try cases and conduct hearings,
receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues in cases falling
within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or
further proceedings (Sec. 9 [3], BP 129 as amended by RA 7902). The CA may pass upon factual issues
as when a petition for certiorari is filed before it (Alcazaren vs. Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. 475
SCRA 636).

This paragraph shows that the present CA is a more powerful court than before. It is a unique court.
Aside from being an appellate court, it also acts as a trial court. It may receive evidence but only those
evidence which were overlooked by the trial court. It can order a new trial or conduct a new trial
itself.

The CA may pass upon factual issues as when a petition for certiorari is filed before it(Alcazaren vs.
Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. 475 SCRA 636) or in petitions for writ of amparo or habeas corpus
data or in case of actions to annul judgment of the RTC over which the CA has original jurisdiction (Bar
2008).

Q: If an issue of fact is tried before the RTC, can I always ask the CA to allow me to present evidence?
Does it mean to say now that since the CA is a very powerful court, it can take the place of the RTC? A:
That is already interpreted in the case of

LINGER AND FISHER vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT – 125 SCRA 522 [1983]