More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg.

APPEALS JURISPRUDENCE

• Appeal from the Regional Trial Court — The three modes of

appeal from decisions of the RTC, namely:
a) Ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where judgment
was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction;
b) Petition for review, where judgment was rendered by the RTC
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and
c) Petition for review to this Court; the first mode of appeal is
governed by Rule 41, and is taken to the CA on questions of
fact or mixed questions of fact and law; the second mode,
covered by Rule 42, is brought to the CA on questions of fact,
of law, or mixed questions of fact and law; the third mode,
provided for by Rule 45, is elevated to this Court only on
questions of law. (Almendras vs. South Davao Dev’t. Corp.,
Inc. (SODACO), G.R. No. 198209, Mar. 22, 2017); (Rep. of
the Phils. vs. Hon. Cortez, G.R. No. 187257, Feb. 07, 2017)

• Appeal in criminal cases — As a general rule, appeals of

criminal cases shall be brought to the Court by filing a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court;
EXCEPT when the CA imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, in which case, the
appeal shall be made by a mere notice of appeal filed before the
CA. (Ramos vs. People, G.R. No. 218466, Jan. 23, 2017)

— In appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court, the

authority to represent the State is vested solely in the
Solicitor General; when sustained. (Bumatay vs. Bumatay,
G.R. No. 191320, April 25, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 2

— In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open

for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though
unassigned in the appealed judgment or even reverse the trial
court’s decision based on grounds other than those that the
parties raised as errors; the appeal confers the appellate court
full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent
to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from,
increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal
law. (People vs. Alejandro, G.R. No. 225608, Mar. 13, 2017);
(Ramos vs. People, G.R. No. 218466, Jan. 23, 2017)

— The Supreme Court is not limited to the assigned errors, but can
consider and correct errors though unassigned and even
reverse the decision on grounds other than those the parties
raised as errors. (People vs. Barte, G.R. No. 179749, Mar. 01,
2017)

Appeal to the Court of Appeals — Court of Appeals has the

discretion to consider the issue and address the matter where
its ruling is necessary: (a) to arrive at a just and complete
resolution of the case; (b) to serve the interest of justice; or (c)
to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; this is consistent with its
authority to review the totality of the controversy brought on
appeal. (Heirs of Teodora Loyola vs. CA, G.R. No. 188658,
Jan. 11, 2017)
— The Court of Appeals has discretion to dismiss an appeal
based on the enumerated grounds. (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corp. vs. Royal Ferry Services, Inc., G.R. No. 188146, Feb. 01,
2017)

— The issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined

the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the
NLRC decision; discussed. (UST vs. Samahang Manggagawa
ng UST, G.R. No. 184262, April 24, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 3

Appeal to the Office of the President — The decision of the Food

and Drug Administration must be appealed to the Office of the
President. (Alliance for the Family Foundation, Phils., Inc.
(ALFI) vs. Hon. Garin, G.R. No. 217872, April 26, 2017)

Appeal to the Regional Trial Court — RTC has no jurisdiction to

deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground, such
as that an appeal is not a proper remedy; the authority to
dismiss an appeal for being an improper remedy is specifically
vested upon the CA and not the RTC. (Philippine Bank of
Communications vs. CA, G.R. No. 218901, Feb. 15, 2017)

Execution pending appeal — Only judgments which have become

final and executory may be executed; however, discretionary
execution of appealed judgments may be allowed under Sec.
2 (a) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure upon
concurrence of the following requisites: (a) there must be a
motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party;
(b) there must be a good reason for execution pending appeal;
and (c) the good reason must be stated in a special order.
(Abenion vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., G.R. No.
200749, Feb. 06, 2017)

— Sec. 2 of Rule 39, allows a court to act upon a motion for

execution pending appeal while it retains jurisdiction over the
action; a party’s appeal by notice of appeal is deemed
perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in
due time; in appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses
jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the
appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to
appeal of the other parties; in either case, prior to the
transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the
court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of
the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter
litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals
of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 4

accordance with Sec. 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the

appeal. (Abenion vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., G.R. No.
200749, Feb. 06, 2017)

Factual findings of administrative agencies — Factual findings of

administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and
even finality by the Supreme Court, especially when these
findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. (Union Bank of
the Phils. vs. Hon. Regional Agrarian Reform Officer, G.R. No.
200369, Mar. 01, 2017)

— Factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their

specific field of expertise, are afforded great weight by the
courts and in the absence of substantial showing that
such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of
the evidence presented, they are conclusive and in the
interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be
disturbed. (Granada vs. People, G.R. No. 184092, Feb. 22,
2017)

— Factual findings of labor officials who are deemed to have

acquired expertise in matters within their respective
jurisdictions are generally accorded not only respect, but
even finality and are binding. (Grande vs. Philippine Nautical
Training College, G.R. No. 213137, Mar. 01, 2017)

— The findings of fact of administrative bodies, when

supported by substantial evidence, are final and non-
reviewable by courts of justice. (Cardino vs. Commission on
Elections En Banc, G.R. No. 216637, Mar. 07, 2017)

Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies — Factual findings by

a quasi-judicial body which has acquired expertise because its
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are accorded not
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 5

only with respect but even finality if they are supported by

substantial evidence; factual findings of the construction
arbitrators are not beyond review. (Werr Corp. Int’l vs.
Highlands Prime, Inc., G.R. No. 187543, Feb. 08, 2017)

— Factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies,

including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by
this Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling
within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by
substantial evidence. (De Leon vs. Maunlad Trans, Inc., G.R.
No. 215293, Feb. 08, 2017)

— Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-

judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally
accorded not only great respect but even finality; they are
binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave
abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they
were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the
evidence on record; exceptions. (Marlow Navigation Phils.,
Inc. vs. Heirs of Ganal, G.R. No. 220168, June 07, 2017)

— Findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies are entitled to

great respect when they are supported by substantial evidence
and, in the absence of any showing of a whimsical or capricious
exercise of judgment, the factual findings bind the Court;
application.(Sumifru [Phils.] Corp. vs. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo
sa Suyapa Farm [NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU], G.R. No. 202091,
June 07, 2017)

— Findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, especially when

affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded finality and respect;
as long as these findings are supported by substantial evidence,
they must be upheld. (Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc. vs. Ramos,
G.R. No. 184256, Jan. 18, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 6

Factual findings of the Commission on Audit — Factual findings

of the COA are accorded not only respect but also finality and it
is only when it acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion may a petition for certiorari be brought
to assail the COA’s actions. (Tetangco, Jr. vs. COA, G.R. No.
215061, June 06, 2017)

Factual findings of the Court of Appeals — Factual findings of

the CA are generally not subject to the Supreme Court’s review
under Rule 45; however, the general rule on the conclusiveness
of the factual findings of the CA is also subject to well-
recognized EXCEPTIONS such as where the CA’s findings of
facts contradict those of the lower court , or the administrative
bodies. (Grande vs. Philippine Nautical Training College, G.R.
No. 213137, Mar. 01, 2017)

Factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals — Supreme Court

accords findings and conclusions of the CTA with the highest
respect; as a specialized court dedicated exclusively to the
resolution of tax problems, the CTA has accordingly developed
an expertise on the subject of taxation; its decisions are
presumed valid in every aspect and will not be overturned on
appeal, unless the Court finds that the questioned decision is
not supported by substantial evidence or there has been an
abuse or improvident exercise of authority on the part of the
tax court. (Sitel Phils. Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. 201326, Feb. 08, 2017)

— The CTA is a highly specialized body that reviews tax cases

and conducts trial de novo; without any showing that the
findings of the CTA are unsupported by substantial evidence,
its findings are binding on this Court. (Commissioner of
Internal Revenue vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No.
215705-07, Feb. 22, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 7

Factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman — As a

general rule, factual findings of the Ombudsman are
conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are
accorded due respect and weight, especially when affirmed by
the CA. (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Ps/Supt. Espina, G.R.
No. 213500, Mar. 15, 2017)

— The general rule is that findings of fact of the CTA are not to be
disturbed by this Court unless clearly shown to be
unsupported by substantial evidence; since by the very nature
of its functions, the CTA has developed an expertise to resolve
tax issues, the Court will not set aside lightly the conclusions
reached by them, unless there has been an abuse or
improvident exercise of authority. (Commissioner of Internal
Revenue vs. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., G.R. No. 213943,
Mar. 22, 2017)

Factual findings of the Regional Trial Court — Factual findings of

the Regional Trial Court, when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court
and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the
evidence on record. (People vs. Jao, G.R. No. 225634, June
07, 2017)

Factual findings of the trial court — Factual findings by the CA

are binding upon this Court, especially when the CA’s findings
unite with the RTC’s factual findings; the Supreme Court is not
at liberty to reject or disturb the factual findings of both lower
courts. (People vs. Quita, G.R. No. 212818, Jan. 25, 2017)

— Factual findings of the trial court affirmed by the Court of

Appeals, respected; rationale. (People vs. Baay, G.R. No.
220143, June 07, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 8

— Factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by

the Court of Appeals, are generally binding and conclusive
upon the Supreme Court. (Quimvel vs. People, G.R. No.
214497, April 18, 2017)

— Findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and

involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect
when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or
speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions are made
from such findings; this rule finds even more stringent
application where the findings are sustained by the CA, as in
this case; rationale. (Belmonte vs. People, G.R. No. 224143,
June 28, 2017)

— Issues or grounds not raised below cannot be resolved on

review by the Supreme Court, for to allow the parties to raise
new issues is antithetical to the sporting idea of fair play,
justice and due process. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Go, G.R. No.
168288, Jan. 25, 2017)

— The factual findings of the trial court are accorded respect

as it is in a better position to evaluate the testimonial
evidence, especially where the said findings are sustained by
the Court of Appeals; exceptions; application. (People vs.
Jesalva, G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017)

— The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; the factual

findings of the lower courts are accorded great weight and
respect; this is especially so in corporate rehabilitation
proceedings, to which commercial courts are designated on
account of their expertise and specialized knowledge.
(Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Liberty Corrugated
Boxes Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 184317, Jan. 25, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 9

— The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of

witnesses is accorded great weight and respect, especially
when affirmed by the Court of Appeals; rationale. (People vs.
Raytos, G.R. No. 225623, June 07, 2017)

Ordinary appeal — An ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals in

cases decided by the trial court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction is done by filing a notice of appeal with the trial
court. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Hon. Cortez, G.R. No. 187257,
Feb. 07, 2017)

Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court under

Rule 45 –– A change of theory on appeal is generally
disallowed in this jurisdiction for being unfair to the adverse
party. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Miguel
Corp., G.R. No. 205045, Jan. 25, 2017)

— A Petition for Review filed under Rule 45 may raise only

questions of law; at present, there are 10 recognized
EXCEPTIONS that were first listed in Medina vs. Mayor
Asistio, Jr.: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When
the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of
Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of
Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth
in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 10

findings of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the

supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the
evidence on record. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Sps. Lasmarias,
G.R. No. 206168, April 26, 2017)

–– A petition for review filed under Rule 45 may raise only

questions of law; the factual findings of the Court of
Appeals, when supported by substantial evidence, are
generally conclusive and binding on the parties and are no
longer reviewable unless the case falls under the recognized
exceptions. (Cahambing vs. Espinosa, G.R. No. 215807, Jan.
25, 2017)

— A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an appeal

from a ruling of a lower tribunal on pure questions of law and
only in exceptional circumstances has the Court entertained
questions of fact. (Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 218970,
June 28, 2017) (Lim vs. Moldex Land, Inc., G.R. No. 206038,
Jan. 25, 2017)

— A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court should cover only questions of law; this rule equally
applies in expropriation cases; the factual findings of the CA
affirming those of the trial court are final and conclusive.
(Rep. of the Phils. vs. Heirs of Santiago, G.R. No. 193828,
Mar. 27, 2017)

— A review of the dismissal of the complaint naturally entailed

a calibration of the evidence on record to properly determine
whether the material allegations of the complaint were amply
supported by evidence; where the resolution of a question
requires an examination of the evidence, the credibility of the
witnesses, the existence and the relevance of surrounding
circumstances, and the probability of specific situations, the
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 11

same involves a question of fact. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. De

Borja, G.R. No. 187448, Jan. 09, 2017)

— A trial court’s order disallowing a notice of appeal, which is

tantamount to a disallowance or dismissal of the appeal itself,
is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be
taken; the suitable remedy for the aggrieved party is to elevate
the matter through a special civil action under Rule 65.
(Philippine Bank of Communications vs. CA, G.R. No. 218901,
Feb. 15, 2017)
***stp
— Actual questions are not the proper subject of a petition for
review under Rule 45, the same being limited only to questions
of law; not being a trier of facts, the Court is not duty-bound to
analyze and weigh again the evidence already considered in
the proceedings below. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. De Borja, G.R.
No. 187448, Jan. 09, 2017)

— Appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is

available only as a remedy from a decision or final order of a
lower court. (Bintudan vs. COA, G.R. No. 211937, Mar. 21,
2017)

— As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in

petitions filed under Rule 45; however, there are recognized
exceptions to this general rule, namely: (1) when the findings
are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4)
when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in
making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the
issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when
the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 12

are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which

they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as
well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts
not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion. (Aldaba vs. Career Phils.
Ship-Mgm’t., Inc., G.R. No. 218242, June 21, 2017);
(Prudential Bank [now Bank of the Phil. Islands] vs. Rapanot,
G.R. No. 191636, Jan. 16, 2017); (Philippine Trust Co. [also
known as Philtrust Bank] vs. Gabinete, G.R. No. 216120, Mar.
29, 2017)

— As a general rule, only questions of law raised via a petition for

review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are reviewable by
the Supreme Court; factual findings of administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much
respect by the Supreme Court as they are specialized to rule
on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these
are supported by substantial evidence. (Aldaba vs. Career
Phils. Ship-Mgm’t., Inc., G.R. No. 218242, June 21, 2017);
(Cuevas vs. Atty. Macatangay, G.R. No. 208506, Feb. 22,
2017)

— Batangas City’s failure to prove the existence of factual

basis to justify the enactment of the Assailed Ordinance
had already been passed upon by the lower courts; such
findings are binding and conclusive upon this Court, and it is
not the Court’s function in a petition for review on certiorari to
examine, evaluate or weigh anew the probative value of the
evidence presented before the trial court; no exception to the
rule in this case. (City of Batangas vs. Philippine Shell
Petroleum Corp., G.R. No. 195003, June 07, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 13

— Court can proceed to review the factual findings of the CA as

an exception to the general rule that it should not review
issues of fact on appeal on certiorari. (Abrogar vs. Cosmos
Bottling Co., G.R. No. 164749, Mar. 15, 2017)

— Court’s duty in a Rule 45 petition, assailing the decision of the

CA in a labor case elevated to it through a Rule 65 petition, is
limited only to the determination of whether the CA committed
an error in judgment in declaring the absence or existence, as
the case may be, of grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the NLRC. (C.I.C.M. Mission Seminaries [Maryhurst,
Maryheights, Maryshore and Maryhill] School of Theology, Inc.
vs. Perez, G.R. No. 220506, Jan. 18, 2017)

— Exception. (Sambalilovs. Sps. Llarenas, G.R. No. 222685,

June 21, 2017)

— Factual issues, which involve a review of the probative

value of the evidence presented, such as the credibility of
witnesses or the existence or relevance of surrounding
circumstances and their relation to each other, may not be
raised unless it is shown that the case falls under recognized
exceptions. (Werr Corp. Int’l vs. Highlands Prime, Inc., G.R.
No. 187543, Feb. 08, 2017)

— Failure to file an appeal by certiorari within the

reglementary period rendered the decision to be final and
executory. (Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs.
Mapagu, G.R. No. 196084, Feb. 15, 2017)
— Generally, questions of fact are beyond the ambit of a petition
for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as it is limited to
reviewing only questions of law; the rule, however, admits of
exceptions wherein the Court expands the coverage of a
petition for review to include a resolution of questions of fact;
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 14

application. (Ibon vs. Genghis Khan Security Services, G.R.

No. 221085, June 19, 2017)
— In a petition for review on certiorari, this Court’s jurisdiction is
limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any
showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of
support in the records or are glaringly erroneous. (California
Mfg. Co., Inc. vs. Advanced Technology System, Inc., G.R.
No. 202454, April 25, 2017)

— In a Rule 45 review, the Supreme Court consider the

correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the
review for jurisdictional error that the SC undertakes under
Rule 65; Rule 45 is limited to the review of questions of law
raised against the assailed CA decision; in ruling for legal
correctness, SC has to view the CA decision in the same
context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was
presented to it; SC has to examine the CA decision from the
prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or
absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision
before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on
the merits of the case was correct. (PNCC Skyway Corp.
(PSC) vs. Sec. of Labor & Employment, G.R. No. 196110,
Feb. 06, 2017)

— In dealing with factual issues in labor cases, substantial

evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion is sufficient. (Lu vs. Enopia, G.R. No.197899, Mar.
06, 2017)

— In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court, only questions of law are addressed; the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of
Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 15

imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive. (Estate of

Poblador, Jr. vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 192391, June 19, 2017)

— It is fundamental that in a petition for review on certiorari, the

Court is limited to only questions of law; as specifically applied
in a labor case, the Court is limited to reviewing only
whether the CA was correct in determining the presence
or absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
DOLE Secretary. (Sumifru [Phils.] Corp. vs. Nagkahiusang
Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm [NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU], G.R.
No. 202091, June 07, 2017)

— Only questions of law are entertained in a Rule 45 petition;

findings of fact of the lower courts are generally conclusive
and binding on the Supreme Court whose function is not to
analyze or weigh the evidence all over again. (Our Lady of
Lourdes Hospital vs. Sps. Capanzana, G.R. No. 189218, Mar.
22, 2017)

— Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on

certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; factual findings
of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations
Commission, if supported by substantial evidence and
when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are binding and
conclusive upon this Court when there is no cogent reason to
disturb the same. (Rodriguez vs. Park N Ride Inc., G.R. No.
222980, Mar. 20, 2017)

— Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on

certiorari under Rule 45; factual findings of the trial court,
especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are generally
binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. (Torres vs.
People, G.R. No. 206627, Jan. 18, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 16

— Only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45;

exceptions; factual findings of the Court of Appeals are
contrary to those of the lower court. (Dutch Movers, Inc. vs.
Lequin, G.R. No. 210032, April 25, 2017)

— Only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court; however, this rule allows certain
exceptions, including a situation where the findings of fact of
the courts or tribunals below are conflicting. (Dagasdas vs.
Grand Placement and General Services Corp., G.R. No.
205727, Jan. 18, 2017)

— Petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 distinguished

with petitions for certiorari under Rule 65; it is the latter
which is required to be filed within a period of not later
than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution;
if a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed, the 60-day
period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the
motion; a party litigant wishing to file a petition for review on
certiorari must do so within 15 days from notice of the
judgment, final order or resolution sought to be appealed.
(Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Mapagu, G.R. No.
196084, Feb. 15, 2017)

— Questions of fact are not cognizable by the Supreme Court.

(Ticong vs. Malim, G.R. No. 220785, Mar. 01, 2017)

— Rule 45 petitions may only raise pure questions of law and that
the factual findings of lower courts are generally binding and
conclusive on the Supreme Court. (Daayata vs. People, G.R.
No. 205745, Mar. 08, 2017)

— Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally

embark in the evaluation of evidence adduced during trial; it is
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 17

not this Court’s function to analyze or weigh all over again the
evidence already considered in the proceedings below, the
Court’s jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law
that may have been committed by the lower court. (Sitel Phils.
Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
201326, Feb. 08, 2017)

— The conflict between the earlier findings and the recitals to the
certificate of completion both issued by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) necessitates the re-
evaluation of the factual matters; remand of the case to the
HLURB is necessary. (TGN Realty Corp. vs. Villa Teresa
Homeowners Assoc., Inc., G.R. No. 164795, April 19, 2017)

— The Court is not a trier of facts and only questions of law may
be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; a
departure from this rule is nevertheless allowed where the
factual findings of the CA are contrary to those of the lower
courts or tribunals. (Brown vs. Marswin Marketing, Inc., G.R.
No. 206891, Mar. 15, 2017)

— The Court may only entertain questions of law as jurisdiction

over factual questions has been devolved to the trial courts
as a matter of efficiency and practicality in the administration
of justice. (Yap vs. Lagtapon, G.R. No. 196347, Jan. 23, 2017)

— The Court’s jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to the review of
pure questions of law; a Rule 45 petition does not allow the
review of questions of fact because the Court is not a trier of
facts. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Mendoza, G.R. No.
198799, Mar. 20, 2017)
— The determination of whether petitioner acted in good faith is a
factual matter, which cannot be raised before the Supreme
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 18

Court in a Rule 45 petition; the Supreme Court is not a trier of

facts and does not normally embark on a re-examination of the
evidence adduced by the parties during trial. (Land Bank of the
Phils. vs. Musni, G.R. No. 206343, Feb. 22, 2017)

— The factual findings of the National Labor Relations

Commission, when confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
usually “conclusive on this Court.” (Madridejos vs. NYK-FIL
Ship Mgm’t., Inc., G.R. No. 204262, June 07, 2017)

— The function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing
errors of law that may have been committed by the lower
courts; the rule admits of exceptions, which includes, but not
limited to: (1) where the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculation, surmise, and conjectures; (2) where
the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) where there is
grave abuse of discretion; (4) where the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by
evidence on record. (Heirs of Villanueva vs. Heirs of Mendoza,
G.R. No. 209132, June 05, 2017)

–– The general rule is that certiorari does not lie to review

errors of judgment of a quasi-judicial tribunal since the
judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess
the evidence of the parties and to weigh their probative value.
(Maula vs. Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., G.R. No. 207838,
Jan. 25, 2017)

— The issue of whether a mortgagee is in good faith cannot be

entertained in a Rule 45 petition because the ascertainment of
good faith or the lack thereof and the determination of
negligence are factual issues which lie outside the scope of
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 19

a petition for review on certiorari. (Dadis vs. Sps. De

Guzman, G.R. No. 206008, June 07, 2017)

— The jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the

CA via Rule 45 is generally limited to reviewing errors of law
and does not extend to a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of
evidence upon which the courts a quo had based its
determination; findings of fact of labor tribunals when affirmed
by the CA bind this Court. (Javines vs. Xlibris, G.R. No.
214301, June 07, 2017)

— The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the

Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 which is
not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court; however, under exceptional circumstances, as when
stringent application of the rules will result in manifest
injustice, the Court may set aside technicalities and proceed
with the appeal; Court recognized the broader interest of
justice and gave due course to the appeal even if it was a
wrong mode of appeal and was even filed beyond the
reglementary period provided by the Rules. (Phil. Bank of
Communications vs. CA, G.R. No. 218901, Feb. 15, 2017)

— The proper remedy to take from a judgment of conviction by the

Sandiganbayan is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45. (Granada vs. People, G.R. No. 184092, Feb. 22, 2017)

— 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. (Yabut vs. Alcantara,
G.R. No. 200349, Mar. 06, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 20

— The trial court and the CA’s identical findings concerning the
assessment of the value of the properties should be accorded
the greatest respect, and are binding on the Court, absent
proof that they committed error in establishing the facts
and in drawing conclusions therefrom; the Court is not a
trier of facts and the rule that petitions brought under Rule 45
may only raise questions of law equally applies to
expropriation cases. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Cebuan, G.R. No.
206702, June 07, 2017)

— Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law

may be raised as this Court is not a trier of facts; it is not our
function to re-examine and weigh anew the evidence of the
parties. (Land Bank of the Phils. vs. Sps. Chu, G.R. No.
192345, Mar. 29, 2017)

— While as a general rule, only errors of law are reviewed by the

Court in petitions for review under Rule 45, one of the well-
recognized exceptions to this rule is when the factual findings
of the NLRC contradict those of the labor arbiter; applied.
(Doble, Jr. vs. ABB, Inc./Nitin Desai, G.R. No. 215627, June
05, 2017)

Petition for Review under Rule 42 — Belated submission of proof of

service to the adverse party and the updated PTR number of
petitioner’s counsel constitutes substantial compliance. (Sps.
Pontillas, Jr. vs. Olivares, G.R. No. 207667, April 17, 2017)

Petition for Review under Rule 43 –– Pursuant to A.M. No. 04-9-07-

SC, all decisions and final orders in cases falling under the
Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim
Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies
shall be appealable to the CA through a Petition for Review
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 21

under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. (Lim vs. Moldex Land,

Inc., G.R. No. 206038, Jan. 25, 2017)

Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments — A court may

grant relief to a party, even if the party awarded did not pray
for it in his pleadings. (Lu vs. Enopia, G.R. No.197899, Mar.
06, 2017)

— An issue, which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised

during the trial in the lower courts, cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal because it would be offensive to the basic rule
of fair play and justice and would be violative of the
constitutional right to due process of the other party. (Union
Bank of the Phils. vs. Hon. Regional Agrarian Reform Officer,
G.R. No. 200369, Mar. 01, 2017)

— Appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for

review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite
and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they
are assigned or unassigned; this rule is strictly observed,
particularly where the liberty of the accused is at stake, as in
the extant case. (PO1 Tabobo III vs. People, G.R. No. 220977,
June 19, 2017)

— As a general rule, points of law, theories, and arguments not

brought before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal and will not be considered by the Supreme Court;
otherwise, a denial of respondent’s right to due process
would result; the Supreme Court will consider and resolve the
issue in the interest of justice and the complete adjudication
of the rights and obligations of the parties. (Rep. of the
Phils. vs. Phil. Int’l. Corp., G.R. No. 181984, Mar. 20, 2017)
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 22

— Before a party may be barred from raising an issue for the first
time on appeal, it is imperative that the issue could have been
raised during the trial; where the sale of the one-half undivided
portion of the subject property took place only two years after
the unlawful detainer case was filed, a party cannot be barred
from raising such issue for the first time on appeal. (Uy
[Cabangbang Store] vs. Estate of Vipa Fernandez, G.R. No.
200612, April 05, 2017)

— Factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the

appellate court, sustained; no reason at all to overturn such
findings of facts and conclusions of law. (People vs. Soriano,
G.R. No. 216063, June 05, 2017)

— For failure to file the requisite petition before the CA, the NLRC
decision had attained finality and had been placed beyond the
appellate court’s power of review. Settled are the rules that a
decision becomes final as against a party who does not appeal
the same and an appellee who has not himself appealed
cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative
relief other than those granted in the decision of the court
below. (Javines vs. Xlibris, G.R. No. 214301, June 07, 2017)

— In a labor case, a Rule 45 petition verifies if the Court of

Appeals failed to determine whether the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) committed grave abuse of
discretion. (Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas vs.
PLDT Co., Inc., G.R. No. 190389, April 19, 2017)

— Pursuant to the settled rule that in a criminal case an appeal

throws the whole case open for review, the Court, however,
finds that this case actually presents a question of law;
specifically, on whether or not the constitutional right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
 More Jurisprudence on Appeals pg. 23

accusation against them was properly observed. (Guelos vs.

People, G.R. No. 177000, June 19, 2017)

— When an accused appeals his judgment of conviction he

waives his constitutional guarantee against double
jeopardy and throws the entire case open for appellate
review; this authority includes modifying the penalty imposed
— either increasing or decreasing the same. (Escalante vs.
People, G.R. No. 218970, June 28, 2017)

Questions of Law —A petition for review under Rule 45 should

only cover questions of law since questions of fact are
generally not reviewable; a question of law exists when the
doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts while
a question of fact results when the issue revolves around the
truth or falsity of the alleged facts; test of whether a question is
one of law or of fact, explained. (Heirs of Villanueva vs. Heirs
of Mendoza, G.R. No. 209132, June 05, 2017)

---- end ----