JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

POINTERS ON APPELLATE
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

Prof. Manuel R. Riguera

2 July 2022
 © 2022. All rights reserved by
Manuel R. Riguera.
•APPEAL
 APPEAL
• A proceeding by which a party seeks
from a higher court the review of a
judgment or final order of a lower court
on the ground that the judgment or final
order is against the evidence or the law.
>
• An appeal may also be taken from “a
particular matter [in a case] when
declared by [the] Rules to be
appealable.” (S1 R41).
 Nature of the right to appeal
• An appeal is not a constitutional but a
statutory right.
 Final Judgment Rule
• An appeal may be taken only from a
judgment or final order that completely
disposes of the case or of a particular
matter therein when declared by the
Rules to be appealable. (S1 R41).
(Justice Lucas Bersamin, APPEAL AND
REVIEW IN THE PHILIPPINES 120-121 (2nd
ed., 2000).
 What may be appealed
• An appeal may be taken only from a:
1. Judgment.
2. Final order that completely disposes of
the case.
3. Particular matter in the case when
declared by the Rules to be appealable.
(S1 R41).
 Examples of #3
Not a final order but may be appealed

• 1. Order of expropriation (S4 R67).

2. Order of partition (S2 R69).
3. Order allowing/disallowing a will.
(S1[a] R109).
MUST FILE BOTH Notice of appeal and records on appeal

Type text here

 The judgment on foreclosure in S2
R68 is appealable within 30 days from
notice by filing NOA + RONA. (Regalado).
BOTH Notice of appeal and records on appeal
<
• The order of confirmation of the
foreclosure sale is a final order which
may be appealed. (Dimalanta v. Ocampo,
20 SCRA 1136). Since foreclosure
involves multiple or separate appeals,
the appeal shall be taken by filing a NOA
and a RONA within 30 days from notice
of the order. (Regalado).
• In appeal, the criterion is not GAD ----------------------
Should be a gross error
but reversible error.
Need not be one made with Grave Abuse of Discretion
 Type text here
• A party can file a notice of appeal even if
there is a pending motion for
reconsideration by adverse party.
(Bernardo v. Soriano, 19 June 2019,
Caguioa, J.)
• Compare with J.P. Latex Technology v.
Ballons, Granger Balloons, Inc., 581 SCRA
553 (2009), where it was held that a
motion for execution pending appeal
cannot be granted if there is a pending
______________________________

motion for reconsideration of the

judgment.
 Dual function of appellate court

• 1. REVIEW FOR CORRECTNESS

FUNCTION. Reviews judgments of lower courts
Type text here
• 2. INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION.
Progressive development of the
law for general application in the
judicial system. (Bersamin 355)
Appellate tribunal renders decisions and lays down rules for the
guidance of everyone. Even if CA orders are not binding, they lay as basis
 CLASSIFICATION OF APPEALS
• 1. APPEAL AS A MATTER OF
RIGHT/ORDINARY APPEAL. R40 & R41.
2. DISCRETIONARY APPEAL/PETITION
FOR REVIEW. R42 & R43.
3. APPEAL BY CERTIORARI/PETITION
FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI. R45.
MTC --> CA = Land registration cases if unopposed or
(delegated juris) if opposed the land value does not exceed
ordinary parin as if RTC
was excersing its juris. 100k
 MODES OF APPEAL
• R40. MTC to RTC.
R41. Appeal from RTC (original J).
R42. Appeal from RTC (appellate J).
R43. Appeal from Quasi-judicial bodies.
R45. Appeal by Certiorari to SC.
Pure question of law

***MTC --> CA = Land registration cases if unopposed or

(delegated juris) if opposed the land value does not exceed
ordinary parin as if RTC
was excersing its juris. 100k
• A board resolution authorizing the
representative to initiate the appeal is
not required for the purpose of filing a
notice of appeal. (United Interior
Manggahan Homeowners Assoc. v. De
Luna, 20 November 2017, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.).
Board reso is needed for petitions for review but not
on Notice of Appeal
Participation of Sol Gen during appeal

• Solicitor General is the lawyer of the

Government of the Republic of the Ph.
• In appeals of criminal cases, before the
CA & the SC, the OSG (not the public
prosecutor) represents the People. >
 OSG-deputized counsel
• Even if the OSG has deputized counsel,
he still retains supervision & control of
the case. Hence the period to appeal a
decision is reckoned from service on the
OSG not on the deputized counsel.
(National Power Corp. v. NLRC, 272 SCRA
704, 716-717, cited in Bersamin 158).
 Judgments or orders which
are not appealable (S1 R41)
• SPACE ID
The aggrieved party may file the
appropriate SCA under R65.
S1 R41
1. Several judgement
2. Order Denying Petition for Relief
3. Order disallowing/dismissing an appeal
4. Order Denying a petition to set aside order denying a confession,
consent or compromise on the ground of vitiated consent
5. Order of Execution
6. Interlocutory orders
7. Order dismissiong a case with prejudice
• Order denying or granting a petition
from relief is not appealable.
(Regalado).
• S1(b) R41: Interlocutory order.
• Since the OMB preventive suspension
order is interlocutory and thus
unappealable, the remedy for an
aggrieved party is a R65 petition with the
CA pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts. (Carpio Morales v. Court of
Appeals, 10 November 2015, e.b., Perlas-
Bernabe, J.).
• S1(c) R41: Order disallowing or
dismissing the appeal.
Dismissal by the trial court

This was based on S15 R41 of the

1964 Rules which provides that when an
appeal is dismissed or disallowed by the
trial court, the remedy is mandamus with
R 65
the appellate court. >
 However, if a party has been
prevented from taking an appeal by FAME,
the remedy is a petition for relief under S2
R38. (JOSE Y. FERIA, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 153 [1997]).
• 1. P v D, ejectment case. Judgment for P.
2. D appeals to RTC. Dismissed by RTC
because of D’s failure to file memorandum per
S7b R40.
3. D files petition for certiorari with CA.
P moves to dismiss the petition on the ground
that appeal was the proper remedy. Is P
correct?
 No. An order disallowing or
dismissing an appeal is not appealable
under S1(c) R41 and hence, aggrieved
party may resort to R65. (Sarmiento v.
Zaratan, 5 February 2007, Chico-Nazario,
J.).
THIS PREVAILS over ang v. grageda
• Cf with Ang v Grageda,, 8 Jun 2006,
Calleja, J., which held that appeal under
R42 was proper since from RTC in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction. In Ang
v Grageda, petitioner did not raise the
issue re applicability of S1c R41 while in
Sarmiento v Zaratan, S1c R41 was
expressly cited by SC.
 Several or Separate Judgment
• 1. P v. A, B, & C.
2. Judgment for A, while court is still
trying case against B and C.
3. May A appeal from the judgment?

SEVERAL JUDGEMENT: Judgement for A,B, and C

SEPARATE JUDGEMENT: Judgment for A on Cause of Action 1,

Cause of Action 2, and so on
 No, an appeal from a several or
separate judgment is not allowed while the
main case is still pending, unless the court
allows an appeal therefrom. (S1[f] R41).

Type text here

 Remedies of aggrieved party A
• 1. Wait for judgment in main/entire
case, and then appeal therefrom.
2. File a motion for leave to appeal. If
granted, file NOA & RONA w/in 30 days
from notice of order granting leave.
3. File a special civil action for
certiorari if GAD. (S1 R41).
 Dismissal with prejudice
• Subject to the right of appeal, an order
granting a motion to dismiss or an
affirmative defense on the ground of
PURE shall bar the refiling of the same
action or claim. (S13 R15).
PURE

Prescription
Unenforceaility under the statute of fraud
Res Judicata
The claim has been paid, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished
 Dismissal without prejudice
• An order granting a motion to dismiss or
an affirmative defense on a ground other
than PURE shall not bar the refiling of
the same action or claim. (See S13 R15).
 Other cases of
“dismissal without prejudice”
• 1. S5 R7 (violation of rule on CFS) Remedy r65
2. S1 R17 dismissal upon initiative of plaintiff. normally di na
mag aappeal plaintiff dito
3. S2 R17
4. S3 R17* (dismissal due to
plaintiff’s fault)
5. S5 R18* (dismissal during pretrial)
Originally, these are with prejudice pag silent si court. but the court may include
in its order that they are WITHOUT prejudice.
*Kapg court is silent, dismissal is with prejudice so appeal ang remedy
• R65 is remedy from order dismissing case
on ground of improper venue and
violation of S5 R7. This is because the
dismissal is without prejudice not being
under S1(f)(h) & (i) [PURE] of R16.
(United Alloy Phils. v. UCPB, 23 Nov 2015,
Del Castillo, J.).
 Case
• 1. P v. D in RTC, partition.
2. D filed answer raising R, C, C, and CFS.
Resjudicata, Lack of Cause of Action etc.
3. RTC dismissed based on said grounds.
4. P filed MR. Denied. P filed R65 with
CA which dismissed for being improper
remedy.
Was CA correct?
 Appeal
• Yes. Where one of the grounds of
_______________________________

dismissal was res judicata, even if other

_______________________________________________________
grounds not PURE, proper remedy is
_____________________________________________________

appeal
__________
and not R65. (Heirs of Malit v.
Heirs of Malit, 28 April 2021, Inting, J.).
 R65 where no appeal
• Judgment declaring presumptive death
under Article 41 of the Family Code is
immediately final and executory and
cannot be appealed; the remedy of the
aggrieved party is a special civil action for
certiorari under R65. (Republic v. Cantor,
10 December 2013).
pag summary proceeding kasi, immediately executory na so no appeal na.
R65 is the remedy
• A prior motion for reconsideration of a
judgment declaring presumptive death is
not a condition precedent for a R65
petition. The reason is that the
judgment is immediately final and
executory per Art. 247 of the Family
Code. (Republic v. Catubag, 18 April
2018, Reyes, J.).
• Small-claims decision may be assailed by
a special civil action for certiorari under
R65. (A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v Mondejar,
22 January 2014).
 Rule 65
• Remedy from order dismissing a case for
failure to state a cause of action is R65,
since the dismissal is without prejudice.
(Sadhwani v. Sadhwani, 14 Aug 2019,
Caguioa, J.).
• Remedy from order dismissing a case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction is R65,
since the dismissal is without prejudice.
(Soller v. Singson, 3 February 2020,
Reyes, J.).
• Order granting or denying a petition
from relief is not appealable.
(Regalado).
 Doctrine of finality/
immutability of judgment
• Once a judgment has become final and
executory or final and unappealable, it
can no longer be modified, even if the
modification is to correct an error of fact
or law, and whether it be made by the
court that rendered it or by the SC.
• A judgment or final order becomes F&E or
F&U if no appeal within reglementary period
or if appeal finally resolved. (See S1 R39).
 Purposes of the doctrine
• (a) to avoid delay in the administration of
justice; and (b) to put an end to judicial
controversies, at the risk of occasional
errors.
 Exceptions (CASS)
• 1. CLERICAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS.
2. TO CLARIFY AN AMBIGUITY IN THE
Must be clarified by the body of the decision
DISPOSITIVE PORTION.not by other document

3. JUDGMENT FOR SUPPORT.

4. SUPERVENING CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH RENDER EXECUTION UNJUST &
INEQUITBLE.
 When to appeal
• An appeal may be taken within 15 days
after notice to the appellant of the
judgment or final order appealed from.
Where a record on appeal is required,
the appeal is taken within 30 days after
notice of the judgment or final order. (S2
R40).
 How to appeal
• The appeal is taken by filing a notice of
appeal with the court that rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from.
**File appeal with the court of origin not the appellate court
>
• An motion for extension of time to file a
NOA is not allowed. (Lacsamana v. IAC,
26 Aug 1986).
• Where a record on appeal is required,
the appellant shall file a notice of appeal
and a record on appeal within 30 days
after notice of the judgment or final
order. (S3 R40). <
**Sabay dapat yung NOA at RONA
 Record on Appeal (RONA)
• A record containing the judgment or final
order appealed from, copies of related
pleadings, papers, and evidence,
together with such data as will show the
appeal was filed on time. <---Material data rule
 Material Data Rule
• The requirement that the RONA must
show on its face that the appeal was filed
on time is mandatory and jurisdictional.
Hence, if not complied with, the
appellate court acquires no jurisdiction
and the appeal must be dismissed.
(Araneta v. Madrigal, 25 Oct 1996; cited
in 1 Regalado 501). See also S1(a) R50.
• A motion for extension of time to file a
RONA may be granted. (Lacsamana v.
IAC, 26 Aug 1986). The reason is that
the record may be voluminous and it may
not be practicable to submit the RONA
within the reglementary period. (Id.)
• A RONA must be filed with the trial court
together with the NOA and must be
approved by the trial court.
**Unlike RONA, approval of NOA is ministerial duty of the court
Kailangan ng approval ng RONA bago ka makapagfile
• Appeal bonds are no longer required for
the taking of an appeal.
 Record on appeal, when required
• A record on appeal shall be required
only in special proceedings and in
other cases of multiple or separate
appeals. (S3 R40).
**Hindi porke spec pro, lahat mag RONA na. RONA is required
in specpro if it involve multiple or separate appeals
 Rule of Thumb to determine
if RONA needed
• Does the trial court still need to continue
proceedings in the case despite the
appeal?
If the answer is yes, a record on
appeal is required since the trial court still
needs to hold on to the case records.
• When is an appeal perfected?
• 1. APPEAL BY NOTICE OF APPEAL. A
party’s appeal by NOA is deemed
perfected as to him upon the filing of the
NOA in due time.
2. APPEAL BY RONA. A party’s appeal by
RONA is deemed perfected as to him with
respect to the subject matter thereof upon
the approval of the RONA filed in due time.
 Distinction between taking and
perfection of appeal
• There is no distinction insofar as appeal
by NOA is concerned. However, in
appeal by RONA, the taking is different
from the perfection which happens only
upon the approval by the trial court of
the RONA.
• When does the trial court lose
jurisdiction over an appealed
case?
• 1. APPEAL BY NOA. The trial 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. >
**Can the trial court still entertain an MR from any party? if yes, di pa expired ang
time to appeal ng other parties
 2. APPEAL BY RONA. The trial court
loses jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the RONA upon the approval of the
RONA filed in due time and the expiration
of the time to appeal of the other parties.
The trial court loses jurisdiction over the SUBJECT MATTER over the case
kasi the trial court still exercises jurisdiction over other subject matter that
was left t it.
• Once a trial court loses jurisdiction over
the case, it can no longer act thereon
except:
1. To enforce or execute the
judgment or final order once it becomes
final and executory. File the motion for execution with the court of origin even if
you lost in trial court before it was reversed by the appellate court

2. To exercise residual jurisdiction

The trial court lost jurisdiction over the case but still holds
records of the case
under S9 R41.
 Residual Jurisdiction (S9 R41)
• It is the power of the trial court after it
has lost jurisdiction but prior to the
transmittal of the original record or the
record on appeal, to:
 PWICE
• 1. Issue orders for the protection and
preservation of the parties’ rights which do
not involve any matter litigated by the
appeal;
2. Approve compromises;
3. Permit appeals of indigent litigants;
4. Order execution pending appeal in
accordance with S2 R39; and
5. Allow withdrawal of the appeal. (S9
R41).
• #1. Trial court can appoint receiver
pending appeal, when records not yet
forwarded, to preserve and protect the
property in litigation.
 #4
• 1. P v D in RTC. Plaintiff wins
judgment. D appeals.
2. Period to appeal of P expires.
3. Records still with RTC.
4. May P file motion for execution
pending appeal with RTC?
Dapat bago nag expire period of appeal ni D, P should have filed the motion for execution

• No. The RTC had already lost

jurisdiction over the case upon the
expiration of P’s appeal period. The
order of execution mentioned in S9 R41
presupposes that a motion for execution ______________________________________________

pending appeal had been filed with trial

____________________________________________________________________________________

court when it still had jurisdiction. (1

________________________________________________________________________

Regalado 510, 7th rev. ed.).

Hindi lang yung pagretain ng records kundi pati dapat yung acquisition of jurisdiction ng trial court.
So dapat sa date ng pagissue ng Order of Execution Pending appeal, both records at jurisdiction meron
ang trial court S9 R41
• An application for damages against the
replevin bond based on residual
jurisdiction cannot be ruled upon if trial
court had dismissed case. Residual
jurisdiction applies only if there was an
appeal. (Jorgenetics Swine Improvement
Corp. v. Thick & Thin Agri-Products, 5
May 2021, Hernando, J.).
 S9 R41
• Where respondent failed to pay the
docket fee, the RTC still retains
jurisdiction over the case even though it
had given due course to the appeal and
transmitted records to CA. RTC may thus
dismiss the appeal for failure to
prosecute. (Huang v. LBP, 17 Feb 2016,
Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
In an appeal, payment of docket fees is jurisdictional. Hence, even if appeal was taken on time, the
appellate court will not acquire jurisdiction of the case
• MTC decisions in delegated land
registration and cadastral cases are
appealable to the CA (Sec. 34, BP Blg.
129).
 S8 R51
• GENERAL RULE: No error will be
considered by the appellate court unless
stated in the assignment of errors or
closely related to or dependent on an
assigned error. >
 JV PC
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Error affects subject-matter
jurisdiction or validity of the judgment.
2. Plain errors and clerical errors.
 APPEALS
S8 R51 not applicable to an appeal under
R40 because of S7(c) R40. (Adora v.
Zamora, 30 May 2011).
 S7(c) R40
• The RTC shall decide the case based on
the entire record of the proceedings had
in the court of origin and such
memoranda as are filed.
 S8 R40
• APPEAL FROM MTC TO RTC WHERE MTC
DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.
Kung mag aappeal si party sa RTC desicion, R41 ang dapat na gamitin paputang CA kasi nga it is as if RTC tried it originally

1. MTC no trial on the merits. RTC will try the case on the merits
as if it was filed originally on it

2. MTC w/ trial on the merits. RTC will decide the appeal

Here, since may trial on the merits, idedecide nya yung case base on the facts of the MTC but additional facts may be admitted

GN:If the court of origin (MTC) has no jurisdiction over the case, then the
appeal itself is also dismissible.

XPN: S8 R40
• RULE 41. Appeal from RTC (original
jurisdiction).
 What may be appealed
• An appeal may be taken only from a:
1. Judgment.
2. Final order that completely disposes of
the case.
3. Particular matter in the case when
declared by the Rules to be appealable.
(S1 R41).
• In an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, the
issuance of the writ of possession to the
purchaser after consolidation is
ministerial. The order for the issuance of
the writ being final, appeal is the proper
remedy. (BPI v. Co, 9 Nov 2015, Jardeleza,
J.).
• A court order denying a motion for the
issuance of a writ of possession is in the
nature of a final order and thus
appealable. (Nuque v. Aquino, 8 July
2015, Peralta, J.).
• The order dismissing the petition for
extrajudicial foreclosure is not
appealable. The remedy is a petition
for mandamus. (First Marbella
Condominium Association, Inc. v.
Gatmaytan, 557 SCRA 155 [2008])
• Order denying motion for leave to file
third-party complaint is appealable. (Vda.
de Dios v. Balagot, 20 SCRA 950).
• An order denying a motion for leave to
intervene may be appealed. (Foster-
Gallego v. Spouses Galang, G.R. No.
130228, 27 July 2004).
 Case re several judgment
WAG NA ITO KASI NAOVERTURN NA NG IBANG RULINGS

P filed cases against A, B, C, and D. A, B,

and C filed their answers while D filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that
there was no proper service of summons
upon her. The RTC granted the motion to
dismiss. What is the recourse of P
against the dismissal order? >
A special civil action for certiorari. The
reason is that the dismissal order is in the
nature of a several judgment under S1(f)
R41 which may not be the subject of
appeal. (Palma v. Galvez, 10 March 2010,
Peralta, J.).
Per recent trend of cases, another
Same with RT
ground is that dismissal is w/o prejudice.
 Periods of Appeals
• 48 hours. Habeas Corpus cases (NOA). Not exactly 48 hours pero 2 days.
As long as within office hours

• 5 working days. Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data

Remedy of aggrieved parties in writ of amparo and habeas data is R45 to SC
Yung R45 na dito yung "APPEAL"

• 15 days. Usual if NOA lang

• 30 days.If may RONA

 Neypes Rule
• Where a movant files a MR or MNT of a
judgment or final order, he has a fresh
appeal period from notice of the denial
of the MR or MNT. (Neypes v. CA, 14 Sep
2005, e.b.).
 Illustration
• 1. Defendant receives notice of
adverse judgment by RTC (original
jurisdiction) on April 1.
2. Defendant files MR on April 16.
3. Defendant receives notice of denial
of MR on June 1.
4. Defendant has until June 16 to file
appeal.
PBCom v CA, 15 Feb 17, Caguioa, J.
• 1. P v. D in RTC.
2. RTC dismissed for failure to pay
docket fee.
3. P filed NOA. Appeal disallowed by
RTC on ground that not proper remedy.
a) Was the order of RTC correct?
 No. Under S13 R41 the RTC may
dismiss on only two grounds: (1) Appeal
filed out of time and (2) nonpayment of
docket and other lawful fees within the
reglementary period.
 4. P filed petition a petition for
certiorari & mandamus with CA. R65
5. CA dismissed stating that appeal
and not certiorari was proper.
b) Is the CA correct?
 No. Order disallowing an appeal is not
appealable, the remedy being R65 (S1
R41).
• RULE 42. APPEAL FROM RTC
(Appellate Jurisdiction).
• Discretionary appeal. (MTD)
• Verified petition for review.
• 15-15-15 (mcr) File mo dapat sa appellate court (CA)
extensions: 2nd pwede. 3rd, for compelling reasons lang

MTD
1. Appeal is patently without merit
2. Appeal is manifestly dilatory
3. The issues raised are TURC
Too Unsubstantial to Require Consideration
 Heirs of Garcia v Iba, Zambales
• 1. MTC refused to give due course to
Defendant’s appeal.
2. Defendant files R65 certiorari with
Original jurisdiction itong R65 ee kaya dapat R41
RTC.
3. RTC rules in favor of Defendant.
4. Plaintiff appeals by R42 to CA which
dismissed appeal for being improper
remedy.
• Dismissal was correct. An appeal from an
RTC decision in a R65 case should be by
way of R41 (ordinary appeal) and not by
R42 (petition for review). (Heirs of
Garcia v. Mun. of Iba, Zambales, 22 July
2015, Bersamin, J.).
Appeal from Special Agrarian Court
XPN to the General Rule
An appeal from the decision of the RTC,
sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, is
made by way of Rule 42 and not Rule 41,
pursuant to Section 60 of R.A. No. 6657
or the CARL. (Landbank v. CA, 11 April
2011).
• RULE 43. Appeal from quasi-
judicial bodies. See list of Quasi Judicial Body in R43
Basis is Sec. 9 of BP Blg. 129.
MTD
15-15-15 (mcr) Same with RTC and CA may dismiss on the ground of MTD
• Appeal from a decision or final order of a
special commercial court rendered in a
civil case covered by the 2020 IPR Rules
is taken to the CA by way of R43. (S2 R9).
XPN na ang RTC is R41/R42 ang remedy. Kasi sabi ng law eh. hehe
 R43
• The OP’s cancellation and/or revocation
of a mining firm’s FTAA is purely ________

administrative in nature and not an

___________________________________________________

exercise of its quasi-judicial authority.

_____________________________________________________

Thus, R43 is not available. (Narra Nickel

Mining & Dev’t Corp. v. Redmont
Consolidated Mines Corp., 9 Dec 2015,
Perlas-Bernabe, J.). R65 is not also applicable in administrative function

Was OP exercising Quasi Judicial Authority? If It is purely Administrative, hindi pwede ang R43
 Administrative Function of DENR Secretary because granting a license is a function
of the DENR secretary and it is not like it is passing a resolution on a dispute between
parties

• The DENR Secretary’s act of approving a

mining company’s application for a
Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
and entering into a MPSA with the
mining company cannot be reviewed
under R43 or R65. (Basiana Mining
Exploration Corp. v. Secretary of the
DENR, 7 March 2016, Reyes, J.).
 Arbitral body tasked with resolving clearing disputes
among the banks
PCHC is a quasi judicial body
• An arbitral award of the PCHC is
appealable not to the Regional Trial
Court, but to the Court of Appeals under
R43. (Metro Bank v. Court of Appeals, 18
February 2009, Nachura, J.).
 GN: In R43, both question of law and question of fact may be raised

XPN: Construction Industry Arbitration Commission

• Arbitral awards by CIAC may be reviewed

via R43 but only on questions of law.
(Metro Bottled Water Corp. v. Andrada
Construction Corp., 6 March 2019,
Leonen, J.).* >

THIS IS NOW OVERTURNED!!!

• But see Global Medical Center of Laguna
v Ross Systems Int’l, e.b., 11 May 2021,
Caguioa, J. which held either R45 (only
on question of law) or R65 (grave abuse
of discretion re integrity-centered issues
or GAD in factual findings).
No longer R43. What will govern is the EO of FEM.
Dito kasi, the substantive law will rule over the general law.
kaya this is an exemption
• Remedy from decisions or final orders of
DAR Secretary is R43 not R65. (Fil-Estate
Properties v. Reyes, 18 Sep 2019, Leonen,
J.).
 R43
• Decision of Sec. of Justice on legality of
tax ordinance may be reviewed under
R43 since an exercise of quasi-judicial
power. (De Lima v. City of Manila, 17 Oct
2018, Reyes, J.).
 R43
Condition precedent ang MR dito

• From ruling of voluntary arbitrator or

panel of arbitrators, aggrieved party
should first file MR w/in 10 days from
notice of award/decision and then R43
within 15 days from notice of denial of
MR. (Guagua National Colleges v. CA, 28
Aug 2018, e.b., Bersamin, J.).
 R43
• The remedy from the OMB’s ruling
exonerating respondents from
administrative liability is not R43 (since
ruling is final & unappealable) but a
petition for certiorari under R65 to the
CA. (Mandagan v. Dela Cruz, 8 Oct 2018,
Perlas-Bernabe).
 R65 to CA (CREFS)
• Remedy from the OMB’s order in admin
cases:
1. Exoneration.
2. Censure. Because these are all final and unappealable

3. Reprimand.
4. Suspension >/ 1 month.
5. Fine >/ 1 month’s salary.
 R19
• OMB has right to intervene in appeals
from its rulings in administrative cases
before rendition of judgment by CA.
(OMB v Bongais, 23 July 2018, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.).

Kapag hidi CREFS, ang remedy is R43

 Ombudsman has a legal personality to appeal

• Ombudsman may appeal CA decision in

administrative case. (OMB v Chipoco, 19
Aug 2019, Peralta, J.).
• The remedy of an aggrieved party from a
decision or order of the Office of the
Ombudsman in a criminal case is to file a
petition for certiorari under R65 before
the SC. (Estrada v. Desierto, 445 SCRA
655 [2004]).
• Respondent’s remedy from consolidated
ruling of Ombudsman (administrative &
criminal case) is R43 from the administrative
aspect and R65 to SC from the criminal. Each
of these remedies remains viable only with
respect to the aspect it is directed to. (Yatco
v. Deputy Ombudsman, 6 July 2020, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.)
• Article 82 of the Omnibus Investments
Code of 1987 providing for direct appeal
from BOI to the Supreme Court is
violative of Art. VI, Sec. 30 of the
Constitution. (First Lepanto Ceramics,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 110571, 7
October 1994, e.b.).
• _____________________________________
Neypes Rule not applicable to
administrative appeals, such as appeal
___________________________________________________
from HLURB Board of Commissioners to
the Office of the President. (San Lorenzo
Ruiz Builders Inc. v. Bayang, 20 April
2015).
HLURB ------> OP = No extension allowed as per administrative
rules on appeals
• RULE 44. ORDINARY APPEALED
CASES (CA)

Same with RTC and

• 1. P v D in RTC.
2. D filed answer raising grounds of
forum shopping and improper venue.
3. RTC dismissed case on ground of
forum shopping, although saying venue
was properly laid. >
 4. P appealed. D argued that case
should have been dismissed on ground of
improper venue too.
5. CA held no forum shopping but
dismissed case on ground of improper
venue. Was it proper for the CA to do so?
 No. An appellee can argue only to
sustain the judgment but not to impugn its
Type text here
correctness. Here, Appellee cannot raise
improper venue on appeal as it can argue
only to sustain the judgment and not to
impugn its correctness. SC ordered remand
to RTC. (Cruz v. MIAA, 9 Sep 2013, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.)
 GN:

• The CA has the power to try cases and

conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform acts necessary to resolve factual
issues in cases falling within its original &
appellate jurisdiction. (§9, BP Blg. 129).

This ruling is already modified in so far as civil cases is concerned

 XPN:
Power of CA to receive evidence
• In appeals in civil cases, the CA may
receive evidence only when it grants a
new trial based on newly-discovered
evidence. (Crispino v. Tansay, 5 Dec 2016,
Leonen, J.).
In criminal cases, CA always has the power to receive evidence
• RULE 45. Petition for review on
certiorari to Supreme Court.
• Period to file 15-30 (jr)
One time extension tong 30 days
just for justifiable reasons
 R45 cf R65

• JuNR FIRM
Jurisdiction Reglementary Period
45 - SC Only 45 - 15 days
65 - Concurrent 65 - 60 days

Nature Impleading parties

45 - Mode of Appeal 45 - lower court need not be impleaded
65 - Special Civil Action 65 - gov't party should be impleaded

MR as condition precedent (CP)

Rule 45 - Not a CP
45 65 - a CP
65
 Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC)
• Appeal from arbitral award of the CIAC is
not by way of R43 but by way of R45 to
the SC. This is an exemption to R45’s
exclusive contemplation of lower courts.
(Global Medical Center of Laguna v. Ross
Systems International, 11 May 2021, e.b.,
Caguioa, J.).
• E.O. No. 1008 provides that the arbitral
award shall be final and unappealable
except on questions of law, which shall
be appealable to the Supreme Court.
(Sec. 19, E.O. No. 1008).
• Appeal from RTC decision on ground of
lack of jurisdiction over action to rescind
memorial park lot purchase raises only a
question of law and should have been
taken to the SC and not to the CA. (Park
Developers Inc. v. Daclan, 27 Nov 2019,
Inting, J.).
 Appeal in Writ of Amparo
& Habeas Data Cases
• Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court
under R45. The period of appeal shall be
5 working days from notice of the
adverse judgment. The appeal may raise
questions of fact or law or both.
• Neypes rule applicable to a Writ of
Amparo case. (Mamba v. Bueno, 7 Feb
2017, [e.b.] Reyes, J.)
In a writ of amparo, you can file a motion for reconsideration and if denied,
the SC held that the aggrieved party may have a fresh period of 5 days
to appeal

Type text here

• RULE 64. Petition for Review
from Judgments of COA &
COMELEC.
• Civil Service Commission covered not
by R64 but by R43.
 Neypes not applicable to R64
• The Neypes rule does not apply to a
petition for certiorari to review the
judgment of the COMELEC and the COA
which is governed by S3 R64. (Pates v.
COMELEC, 30 June 2009). >
Where a MR filed and denied, the
movant has the remaining period to file
the petition but not less than 5 days in
any event, reckoned from notice of the
denial of the MR. (S3 R64).
Yung balance lang dapat ang iapply. so walang extension

Sa rule on pretermition, kapag mag aadd ka ng days of extension, icompute mo sa original last day
kahit pa holiday or saturday iyon. Pero kapag nanghingi ka ng extension,
pwede mo ifile sa next working day (Part 3C ng lecture ni riguerra)
 Pates v COMELEC, 30 June 2009
• 1. 4 Feb. Petitioner received reso of
COMELEC’s 1st Division.
2. 8 Feb. Petitioner filed MR of reso which
was elevated to COMELEC en banc.
3. 22 Sep. Petitioner received reso of
COMELEC en banc denying MR.
4. 22 Oct. Petitioner filed R64 with SC.
Dapat naiapply to ng ON OR BEFORE OCT. 19
 R51. Judgment
• What errors may be passed upon on
appeal? (S8 R51)
GR: Only those assigned as error or
closely related to or dependent on an
assigned error.
Exc: JV PC
1. Error affets subject matter jurisdiction or validity of judgement
2. Plain errors or clerical errors
 Harmless error rule
• The rule that the appellate court should
not reverse a judgment as a result of any
error or defect which does not affect the
substantial rights of the parties. (See S6
R51). >
e.g. Objection to the leading question and court overruled kasi you can still cross examine naman
the plaintiff and it did not affect the substantial rights of the party
 Reversible error
• One that is sufficiently serious or
grave to prejudice the substantial
rights of the appellant. (Bersamin
362).
Do not use Grave Abuse of Discretion (GAD) in appeal. It is only used in Certiorari.
You can allege GAD in appeal but it is not the proper benchmark.
The proper benchmark is to prove reversible error

E.g. Order of the court denying admission to a document that is vital to their case
• DISMISSAL, REINSTATEMENT, &
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL
• Q How shall the Court of Appeals treat
an improper appeal?
• An appeal under R41 taken from the RTC
to the CA raising only legal questions
shall be dismissed.
An appeal by NOA instead of a PFR
from the appellate judgment of the RTC
shall be dismissed. >
 No Transfer Rule
• An appeal erroneously taken to the CA
shall not be transferred to the
appropriate court but shall be dismissed
outright. (S2 R50).
 Reinstatement of Appeal
• If an appeal has been dismissed, the
appellate court retains the power or
discretion to reinstate it for good cause.
This power is implied from the power to
dismiss the appeal. (B.R. Sebastian v. CA,
206 SCRA 28, [1992]; cited in LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN, APPEAL & REVIEW IN THE
PHILIPPINES 251 [2000]).
 Of course once the dismissal order
becomes final, the appellate court can no
longer reinstate the appeal.
• Q May an appeal be withdrawn?
 A Yes. An appeal may be
withdrawn as of right at any time before
the filing of the appellee’s brief. As a matter of right ito
Thereafter, the withdrawal may be allowed
in the discretion of the court.
ito as a matter of discretion
• POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES
OTHER THAN APPEAL
• RULE 38. PETITION FOR RELIEF
 GROUNDS
• 1. FAME + good & substantial COA or
Cause of Action
defense
Hindi sapat ang FAME. Dapat may COA din

2. FAME which prevented the taking of

an appeal.
• R38 applicable to criminal cases. (See
Basco v. CA, 337 SCRA 472 [2000]).
• Petition for relief is not available against
a judgment of the Court of Appeals.
(Mesina v. Meer, 2 July 2001).
Availale lang siya sa ruling ng RTC at MTC
• Advanced age (80) of counsel not a
ground for petition for relief from failure
to appeal. (Madarang v. Morales, 9 June
2014, Leonen, J.).
 RULE 38.
• The petition for relief grounded on
extrinsic fraud (i.e., that wrong address
provided for service of summons) meant
that the court did not acquire personal
jurisdiction. Hence, petition for relief can
be filed at anytime unless barred by
laches/estoppel. (Duremdes v. Jorilla, 26
Feb 2020, Inting, J.).
• RULE 46. ORIGINAL CASES IN
THE CA
• Q In original actions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, and quo
warranto (CPM Q), how does the court
acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the respondent?
• A The court shall acquire jurisdiction
over the respondent’s person by the
service on him of its order or resolution
indicating its initial action on the petition
or by his voluntary submission to such
jurisdiction. (S4 R46). >
• Service of the order or resolution upon the
party’s counsel of record is deemed service
upon such party. This is true even if the
counsel had withdrawn but no notice of
withdrawal was filed with the court prior to
the service of the order or resolution.
(Francisco v. Loyola Plans Consolidated Inc., 1
February 2016, Peralta, J.).
• Q May the court dismiss outright a
petition for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, and quo warranto?
• A Yes, the court may dismiss the
petition outright with specific reasons for
such dismissal or require the respondent
to file a comment on the same within ten
days from notice. Only pleadings
required by the court shall be allowed.
(S5 R46).
• RULE 51. JUDGMENT.
• Q What errors may be passed upon on
appeal?
 G.R.: Only those assigned as errors
closely related to or dependent on an
assigned error.
 JV PC
EXC:
1. Those which affect subject-matter
jurisdiction or the validity of the
judgment.
2. Plain and clerical errors. (S8 R51;
S4 R56).
• Q What is the harmless error rule?
 The rule which provides that no error
is ground for granting a new trial or for
setting aside, modifying, or otherwise
disturbing a judgment or order, unless
refusal to take such action appears to the
court inconsistent with substantial justice.
>
 The court at every stage of the
proceeding must disregard any error or
defect which does not affect the
substantial rights of the parties. (S6 R51).
 Illustration
• An error by the court in admitting
hearsay evidence is harmless if there are
other pieces of evidence sufficient to
support the judgment rendered by it.
• May a motion for new trial be filed with
the Court of Appeals?
• Yes. At any time after perfection of the
appeal from the lower court and before the
CA loses jurisdiction over the case, a party
may file a MNT on the ground of newly
discovered evidence which could not have
been discovered prior to the trial of the
court below by due diligence and which
would probably change the result. (S1 R53).
• PROCEDURE IN THE SC
• What are the cases which may be filed
originally in the SC?
• 1. CPM HQ.
2. Disciplinary proceedings against
members of the judiciary.
3. Cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers, and consuls. (S1 R56).
• Q What action does the Supreme
Court take on an improper appeal?
A The Supreme Court shall dismiss the
improper appeal.
The exception is an appeal by
certiorari to the Supreme Court from the
RTC which involves issues of fact. The
appeal may be referred to the Court of
Appeals for decision or appropriate action.
(S6 R56).
• Q What is the procedure if the Supreme
Court en banc is equally divided in
opinion?
• A Where the court en banc is equally
divided in opinion, or the necessary
majority cannot be had, the case shall
again be deliberated on, >
and if after such deliberation no decision is
reached, the original action commenced in
the court shall be dismissed; in appealed
cases, the judgment or order appealed
from shall stand affirmed; and on all
incidental matters, the petition or motion
shall be denied. (S7 R56).
•R47. ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENTS/FINAL
ORDERS.
 Grounds
• Extrinsic fraud & lack of jurisdiction.
 Period to file
• Extrinsic fraud: 4 years from discovery.
Lack of jurisdiction: Imprescriptible
unless barred by laches/estoppel.
 “Lack of jurisdiction”
• Involves lack of personal or subject-
matter jurisdiction. It does not refer to
cases where the court has personal or
subject-matter jurisdiction but acted
beyond such jurisdiction. (Teaño v.
Municipality of Navotas, 15 February
2016, Sps. Manila v. Sps. Manzo, 7 Sep
2011, Villarama, J.).
 Manila v Manzo, 7 Sep 2011
• In an appealed ejectment case, the
RTC acted in excess of its jurisdiction
when instead of simply dismissing the
ejectment complaint, it ordered the
lessors to execute a deed of sale in
favor of the lessees. However, the
lessor’s remedy is appeal not R47. >
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for
annulment of judgment refers to either
lack of personal or subject-matter
jurisdiction. It does not refer to excess of
jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdictional
discretion. (Manila v. Manzo, 7
September 2011).
 Rule 47
• Judgment of court granting petition for
issuance of duplicate certificate of title,
filed by transferee in deed of sale, void
where no notice given to heirs of
registered owner. Judgment may be
nullified under R47. (Heirs of Ramirez v.
Abon, 24 July 2019, Caguioa, J.).
• Judgment which did not implead
indispensable party may be nullified
under R47 on ground of lack of
jurisdiction. (Fernando v. Paguyo, 18 Sep
2019, Caguioa, J.).
 Rule 47
• In an accion publiciana filed by plaintiff
registered owner against defendant, the
RTC judgment awarding ownership to
defendant was void since ownership
cannot be adjudicated in an accion
publiciana. Judgment may be set aside
via R47. (Heirs of Cullado v. Gutierrez, 30
July 2019, e.b., Caguioa, J.).
• R47 shall govern the annulment by the
CA of judgments or final orders and
resolutions in civil actions of RTCs for
which the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of the
petitioner.
 R47
• Where R47 action based on lack of
jurisdiction over person/subject matter,
no need to aver that ordinary remedies
of new trial, appeal, and motion for
reconsideration are no longer available
w/o fault. (Alvarez v. Domantay, 3 June
2019, Reyes, J.).
• Jurisprudence recognizes denial of due
process as another ground. If a court
approved a commissioner’s project of
partition when only 3 of the 9 heirs were
notified of the meeting to discuss the
project, the aggrieved heirs could resort
to R47. (Benatiro v. Heirs of Cuyos, 560
SCRA 478 [2008]).
The grant of 5% monthly interest is way
beyond the 12% per annum interest sought
in the Complaint and is violative of due
process. Under S3(d) R9, a default
judgment shall not exceed the amount or
be different in kind from that prayed for.
(Diona v. Balangue, 7 Jan 2013, Del Castillo,
J.).
• Void RTC judgment (defendant not validly
served with summons) may be attacked
by R47 or by R65. R47 does not preclude
resort to R65. (Titan Dragon Properties
Corp. v. Veloso-Galenzoga, 28 April 2021,
Zalameda, J.).
• R47 n.a. to criminal cases.
• Jurisdiction with RTC or CA.
• Reversion suit seeking to nullify
judgment of RTC acting as a land
registration court should be filed as a R47
petition with CA. (Yujuico v. Republic, 26
October 2007).
 Distinguished from Yujuico
• Action for reversion proper, instead of
R47, where Republic’s position is that
there was no RTC/CFI judgment in the
first place ordering issuance of decree.
(Malabanan v. Republic, 19 Sep 2018,
Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• The RTC in a partition case did not have
the jurisdiction to review the validity of
the adoption decree issued by the
erstwhile CFI by virtue of the equal rank
and category between the RTC and the
CFI. The proper court with jurisdiction to
do so was the CA. (Oribello v CA, 5 Aug
2015, Bersamin, J.)
 R47
• Extrinsic fraud where Petitioner in
marriage nullity case willfully indicated a
wrong “last known address” of
Respondent in his application for
extraterritorial service under S17 R14.
Judgment should be annulled. (Yu v. Yu,
20 June 2016, Peralta, J.).
• The RTC has no jurisdiction to issue an
order for the issuance of replacement
owner’s duplicate title if the owner’s
duplicate title was not actually lost but
was in the possession of a person who
had bought the property. The RTC order
may be set aside under R47. (Villanueva
v. Viloria, 14 March 2008).
• DIRECT & COLLATERAL ATTACK
ON JUDGMENT
• A direct attack on a final and executory
judgment is made through an action or
proceeding the main object of which is to
annul, nullify, set aside, or enjoin the
enforcement of such judgment. This is
necessary where the nullity of a
judgment does not appear on its face.
Examples are R47 and R65.
• A collateral attack on the other hand is
made when in another action or
proceeding to obtain a different relief, an
attack on the judgment is made as an
incident on the action. This is proper
only when the judgment is on its face
void, as where it is patent that the court
had no jurisdiction. >
 To collaterally overthrow a judgment,
it is not enough for a party to show an
erroneous decision; he must show to the
court that the judgment complained of is
void upon its face. (Go v. Chavez, 3 August
2015, Brion, J.).
• R65 AS A REMEDY FROM
JUDGMENT
• Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost
remedy of appeal. Hence, a petition for
certiorari is not a proper remedy to set
aside a CA decision even if it avers grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
or excess of jurisdiction. The aggrieved
party should have appealed.
 R65 where no appeal
• Judgment declaring presumptive death
under Article 41 of the Family Code is
immediately final and executory and
cannot be appealed; the remedy of the
aggrieved party is a special civil action for
certiorari under R65. (Republic v. Cantor,
10 December 2013).
• A prior motion for reconsideration of a
judgment declaring presumptive death is
not a condition precedent for a R65
petition. The reason is that the
judgment is immediately final and
executory per Art. 247 of the Family
Code. (Republic v. Catubag, 18 April
2018, Reyes, J.).
• Small-claims decision may be assailed by
a special civil action for certiorari under
R65. (A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v Mondejar,
22 January 2014).
 Remedy from denial
of third-party claim
• Neither appeal (because third-party
claimant is not a party) nor certiorari as
there is adequate remedy of filing
separate reivindicatory action. (PSALM v
Maunlad Homes, 8 Feb 2017, Peralta, J.)
 Appeal in Special Proceedings
• In special proceedings and other cases of
separate or multiple appeals (SMS)
where a record on appeal is required, the
appeal shall be taken within 30 days from
notice by filing a notice of appeal and a
record on appeal with the court from
which the appeal is being taken. (S2[a] &
3 R41).
 HACAFF
• Q What are the orders or judgments in
special proceedings from which an
appeal may be taken?
A An appeal may be taken from an order
or judgment which: (HACAFF)
(a) Allows or disallows a will.
(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs
or the distributive share of the estate to
which such heir is entitled.
(c) Allows or disallows any claim against
the estate or any offsetting claim by the
estate.
(d) Settles the account of an executor,
administrator, trustee, or guardian
(GATE).
(e) In estate proceedings or those
relating to a trustee or a guardian (GET),
is a final determination in the lower court
of the rights of the party appealing. No
appeal shall be allowed from the
appointment of a special administrator.
(fdr)
 (f) Is the final order or judgment
rendered in the case and affects the
substantial rights of the person appealing.
(fsr) (S1 R109).
 Silverio v CA 16 Sep 2009
• The order of the intestate court for Nelly
to vacate a portion of the estate property
is only an interlocutory order that may
not be the subject of an appeal. Until
the estate is partitioned, each heir only
has an inchoate right to the properties of
the estate, such that no heir may lay
claim on a particular property.
• From the probate court’s order allowing
the will of FM and issuing letters
testamentary to Imelda and Bongbong
Marcos, the Republic should have
appealed to the CA under S1(a) R109
instead of filing a petition for review on
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
(Republic v. Marcos, 4 August 2009).
 S1 R109
• Order of probate court that certain
properties should be included in the
inventory is interlocutory and cannot be
appealed under S1 R109. Remedy is
certiorari under R65. (Aranas v Mercado,
15 Jan 2014).
• Probate court’s order denying a motion
for advance distribution is not appealable
because it is an interlocutory order.
(Ignacio v. Reyes, 12 July 2017).
 Rep v Nishina, 15 Nov 2010
• Appeal from the RTC’s order granting a
petition for change of name is perfected
by filing only a notice of appeal. A record
on appeal is not required since the case
does not involve multiple or separate
appeals where the trial court needs to
retain the original record.
• APPEAL IN CRIMINAL
CASES
 Appeal from resolutions of the
Provincial/City Prosecutor
• Verified Petition for Review with the
Secretary of Justice filed within 15 days
from receipt of the resolution or from
the denial of the MR if one had been
filed within 15 days from receipt of the
resolution. (2000 NPS Rule on Appeal).
 Mina v Tandoc, 28 Jan 2019
• a) If the complaint is filed outside the
NCR and is cognizable by the MTC, the
ruling of the OPP may be appealable by
way of petition for review before the
ORSP, which ruling shall be with finality;
 (b) If the complaint is filed outside the
NCR and is not cognizable by the MTC, the
ruling of the OPP may be appealable by
way of petition for review before SOJ,
which ruling shall be with finality;
 (c) If the complaint is filed within the
NCR and is cognizable by the MTC, the
ruling of the OCP may be appealable by
way of petition for review before the
Prosecutor General, whose ruling shall be
with finality;
 (d) If the complaint is filed within the
NCR and is not cognizable by the MTC, the
ruling of the OCP may be appealable by
way of petition for review before the SOJ,
whose ruling shall be with finality;
 (e) Provided, that in instances covered
by (a) and (c), the SOJ may, pursuant to his
power of control and supervision over the
entire National Prosecution Service,
review, modify, or reverse the ruling of the
ORSP or the Prosecutor General, as the
case may be.
 Mem Aid
• If complaint cognizable by MTC, then
appeal to ORSP (outside MM) or PG
(w/in MM).
If complaint cognizable by RTC, then
appeal to SOJ.
• The question on whether the Sec. of
Justice committed GAD in affirming,
reversing, or modifying the resolutions of
prosecutors may be the subject of
certiorari under R65 to the CA. (De Lima
v. Reyes, 11 January 2016, Leonen, J.).
 Hilbero v. Morales
11 January 2017
If the DOJ Sec’s resolution involves
offenses punishable by RP to death, the
proper remedy, where new and material
issues are raised, is an appeal to the Office
of the President within 30 days from
notice. (Memorandum Circular No. 58,
issued by the Office of the President on 30
June 1993).
• Ruling of the Office of the Regional State
Prosecutor (or Prosecutor General) is
already final and thus R65 is available.
(Mina v. Tandoc, 28 Jan 2019, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.).
• Court upheld R65 to SC (from SB) as
People’s remedy from dismissal of cases
on ground of violation of right to speedy
disposition of case. (People v.
Desembrana & SB, 28 July 2020, Lazaro-
Javier, J.).
• Prosecution cannot appeal CA judgment
which reduced conviction for rape to one
for lascivious acts. (People v. Arcega, 27
August 2020, Peralta, C.J.).
• RULE 122. APPEAL.
 Cajipe v. People, 23 April 2014

• The proper remedy that the OSG should

have taken from the dismissal order
rendered under S5 R112 was to appeal.
The dismissal for lack of probable cause
is a final order.
• The remedy from the SB’s order
dismissing the informations for lack of
probable cause is appeal not certiorari
since the dismissal is a final order.
(People v. SB, 18 Nov 2020, Caguioa, J.).
• PLDT has the legal personality to file
appeals from the orders quashing the
search warrant. A search warrant
proceeding is not a criminal action, much
less a civil action, but a special criminal
process. (HPS Software v. PLDT, 10
December 2012; Worldwide Web Corp. v.
People, 13 January 2014).
 Order quashing search warrant
• Where a search warrant is applied for
and issued in anticipation of a criminal
case yet to be filed, the order quashing
the warrant ends the judicial process.
Hence, the remedy from such an order is
appeal and not certiorari. (Worldwide
Web Corp. v Pp, 13 January 2014).
• Q What are the effects of an appeal
from a judgment of conviction?
A (a) the execution of the judgment or
final order shall be stayed as to the
appealing party. (S11[c] R122).
(b) The appeal throws open the entire
case for review. <
• Note however that the execution of a
judgment or final order of indirect
contempt shall not be suspended by an
appeal unless the person adjudged in
contempt files a bond. (S11 R71).
• Appeal in criminal case throws opens the
entire case for review, including
questions not raised by the parties. SC
acquitted an accused on the ground of
violation of his right to be informed on
the nature of the charge against him,
even if not raised on appeal.
(Malabanan v. SB, 2 Aug 2017, Sereno,
C.J.).
• An appeal in a criminal case opens the
entire case for review. Thus, appellant
was not placed in double jeopardy when
the CA modified the RTC ruling by finding
him guilty of robbery with homicide as
charged in the information instead of
murder only as ruled by the RTC. (People
v. Torres, 24 September 2014).
• Ground that info failed to charge an
offense is not waived even if not raised in
MTQ and may be raised even on appeal.
Info did not allege that accused made an
express representation in the 2nd Deed
of Sale with Pacia that the land is free
from any encumbrance. (Tayamen v.
People, 28 April 2021, Delos Santos, J.).
• Q To what court may an appeal be
taken?
A (a) To the RTC in cases decided by the
MTC.
(b) To the CA in cases decided by the
RTC.
(c) To the SC in cases decided by the
CA, the SB, and the CTA en banc.
 Appeals from the Sandiganbayan
• Appeal from SB judgment in criminal
case rendered in exercise of its original
jurisdiction is taken by filing a notice of
appeal. (People v. Talaue, 12 Jan 2021,
Peralta, C.J.).
If in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, appeal is by R45. (2018 RIR of
SB).
• Even if the appeal from the RTC is on a
pure question of law, the appeal must be
taken to the CA and not the SC pursuant
to S3(a) R122. (Tan v. People, 381 SCRA
74 [2002], e.b., Vitug, J.)
 Overturned
• A RTC decision convicting a public officer
(<SG27) of malversation of public funds is
appealable to the SB (not to the CA)
pursuant to P.D. 1606. Since the accused
availed of the wrong mode, the judgment
of conviction became final and executory.
(Quilesete v. People, 18 Feb 2009,
Nachura, J.).
 Basis for Quilesete ruling
• An appeal erroneously taken to the CA
shall not be transferred to the
appropriate court but shall be dismissed
outright. (S2 R50; S18 R124).
• An appeal erroneously taken by Accused
from conviction by RTC of malversation
to CA should be endorsed by CA to SB,
instead of being dismissed. The error is
not attributable to accused as the duty to
transmit the records to the proper court
devolves upon the RTC. (Dizon v. Pp, 24
Jan 2018, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• CA has no jurisdiction over appeals from
final judgments or orders of RTC re
violations of RA 3019. Case remanded
to RTC for referral to the Sandiganbayan.
(Muñez v. People, 28 Aug 2019, Lazaro-
Javier, J.)
Interestingly, the case was elevated to
and decided by the CA!
• Appeal from RTC conviction of public
officer under Anti-Graft Law erroneously
elevated to CA. SC remanded to RTC for
transmission to SB. (Galeon v. People, 14
Oct 2019, Lazaro-Javier, J.).
Here CA also rendered decision
affirming RTC decision. Vacated and
remanded.
• Error in appealing RTC judgment to CA
instead of to SB (the CA was indicated in
the notice of appeal) held to not
prejudice the accused. Designation of
wrong court does not affect validity of
appeal. Duty of RTC judge to forward
case to SB. (Sideño v. People, 3 Sep 2020,
Peralta, C.J.).
 How is an appeal taken?
• A (a) The appeal to the RTC or to the CA
in cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be
by notice of appeal.
(b) The appeal to the CA in cases
decided by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction shall be by PFR under
R42. >
 (c) If the penalty imposed by the RTC
is RL or where a lesser penalty is imposed
but for offenses committed on the same
occasion or which arose out of the same
occurrence that gave rise to offense for
which the penalty of DRL is imposed,
appeal shall be by notice of appeal to the
CA. >
 (d) If the RTC imposed the death
penalty, the CA shall automatically review
the judgment.
(e) Except where the penalty of RL is
imposed, an appeal to the SC shall be by
R45. <
Common Error
 NOA to SC
• 1. Penalty of RL is imposed or lesser
penalty but for offenses COSO or ASOGO.
2. SB judgment (original jurisdiction).
• Q B, C, D and E were convicted of
murder by the RTC. The RTC relied
principally and heavily on the testimony
of X, the lone eyewitness. Only B
appealed and C, D, and E served
sentence. >
On appeal to the SC, the latter reversed the
RTC’s judgment finding that the testimony
of X bereft of any credence. Will the
acquittal of B also result in the acquittal of
C, D, and E?
• A Yes. An appeal taken by one or more
of several accused shall not affect those
who did not appeal, except insofar as the
judgment of the appellate court is
favorable and applicable to the latter.
(S11[a] R122; People v. Webb, 14
December 2010).
• An appeal by one accused in a drugs case
which resulted in his acquittal for failure
of the police to observe the chain of
custody will benefit the accused who did
not appeal. (People v. Lumaya, 7 March
2018, Perlas-Bernabe, J.; S11[a] R122).
• Q A, B, C, and D were convicted by
the RTC of homicide for the killing of X.
Only C and D appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which found them guilty of
murder instead, on a finding that all of
the accused employed treachery. May A
and B be found guilty of murder also?
• A No. An appeal taken by one or
more of several accused shall not affect
those who did not appeal, except insofar
as the judgment of the appellate court is
favorable and applicable to the latter.
(S11[a] R122).
 S6 R122
• An appeal must be taken within 15 days
from promulgation of the judgment or
from notice of the final order appealed
from. >
This period for perfecting an appeal shall
be suspended from the time a MNT or MR
is filed until notice of the order overruling
the motion has been served upon the
accused or his counsel at which time the
balance of the period begins to run.
 YU v. SAMSON-TATAD,
9 FEBRUARY 2011
• The fresh 15-day period rule in Neypes v.
Court of Appeals (15 September 2005)
applies to appeals in criminal cases,
notwithstanding the wordings of S6
R122.
 Withdrawal of Appeal
• The trial court (MTC/RTC) may allow the
appellant to withdraw his appeal before
the record has been forwarded to the
appellate court. >
 The RTC, on appeal, may allow the
appellant to withdraw his appeal before
rendition of judgment in the appealed
case.
• The offended party may file a R65
certiorari petition to challenge the RTC’s
order giving due course to appeal, where
there was grave abuse of discretion
because of the violation of S6 R120.
(Salvador v. Chua, 15 July 2015,
Bersamin, J.).
• RULE 124. PROCEDURE IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS.
 Dismissal of appeal by CA (BJ FE)
• Upon motion or motu proprio:
1. Failure to timely file brief (except
where appellant is represented by counsel
de oficio).
2. Appellant escapes, jumps bail, or
flees to foreign country.
 S13 R124
• Q What shall the CA do after rendering
judgment imposing reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment?
• In cases where the CA imposes reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser
penalty,* it shall render [and enter]
judgment imposing such penalty. The
judgment may be appealed to the SC by
NOA filed with the CA. (S13[c] R124).
 SUBSTANTIAL ERROR RULE
• Judgment not to be reversed or modified
except for substantial errors, that is, one
which injuriously affected the substantial
rights of the appellant. (S10 R124).
THANK YOU AND
GODSPEED