FIRSTDIVISION

ABSCBNBROADCASTINGG.R.No.169332
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,Present:
PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
versusCORONA,
AZCUNAand
LEONARDODECASTRO,JJ.

WORLDINTERACTIVE
NETWORKSYSTEMS(WINS)
JAPANCO.,LTD.,
Respondent.Promulgated:

February11,2008

xx

DECISION

CORONA,J.:

ThispetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtseekstoset
asidetheFebruary16,2005decision

[1]
[2]
andAugust16,2005resolution of the Court of

Appeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.81940.

OnSeptember27,1999,petitionerABSCBNBroadcastingCorporationenteredintoa
licensingagreementwithrespondentWorldInteractiveNetworkSystems(WINS)JapanCo.,
Ltd., a foreign corporation licensed under the laws of Japan. Under the agreement,
respondent was granted the exclusive license to distribute and sublicense the distribution of
the television service known as The Filipino Channel (TFC) in Japan. By virtue thereof,

petitionerundertooktotransmittheTFCprogrammingsignalstorespondentwhichthelatter
receivedthroughitsdecodersanddistributedtoitssubscribers.

Adisputearosebetweenthepartieswhenpetitioneraccusedrespondentofinserting
nine episodes of WINS WEEKLY, a weekly 35minute community news program for
Filipinos in Japan, into the TFC programming from March to May 2002.

[3]
Petitioner

claimed that these were unauthorized insertions constituting a material breach of their
agreement.Consequently,onMay9,2002,

[4]
petitioner notified respondent of its intention

toterminatetheagreementeffectiveJune10,2002.

Thereafter,respondentfiledanarbitrationsuitpursuanttothearbitrationclauseofits
agreement with petitioner. It contended that the airing of WINS WEEKLY was made with
petitioner's prior approval. It also alleged that petitioner only threatened to terminate their
agreementbecauseitwantedtorenegotiatethetermsthereoftoallowittodemandhigherfees.
Respondentalsoprayedfordamagesforpetitioner'sallegedgrantofanexclusivedistribution
licensetoanotherentity,NHK(JapanBroadcastingCorporation).

[5]

The parties appointed Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar to act as sole arbitrator. They
[6]
stipulatedonthefollowingissuesintheirtermsofreference(TOR) :

1.WasthebroadcastofWINSWEEKLYbytheclaimantdulyauthorizedbytherespondent
[hereinpetitioner]?

2. Did such broadcast constitute a material breach of the agreement that is a ground for
terminationoftheagreementinaccordancewithSection13(a)thereof?

3. Ifso,wasthebreachseasonablycuredunderthesamecontractualprovisionofSection13
(a)?

4.Whichpartyisentitledtothepaymentofdamagestheyclaimandtotheotherreliefsprayed
for?

xxxxxxxxx

Thearbitratorfoundinfavorofrespondent.

[7]
Heheldthatpetitionergaveitsapproval

to respondent for the airing of WINS WEEKLY as shown by a series of written exchanges
between the parties. He also ruled that, had there really been a material breach of the
agreement, petitioner should have terminated the same instead of sending a mere notice to
terminate said agreement. The arbitrator found that petitioner threatened to terminate the
agreementduetoitsdesiretocompelrespondenttorenegotiatethetermsthereofforhigher
fees.Hefurtherstatedthatevenifrespondentcommittedabreachoftheagreement,thesame
was seasonably cured. He then allowed respondent to recover temperate damages, attorney's
feesandonehalfoftheamountitpaidasarbitrator'sfee.

PetitionerfiledintheCAapetitionforreviewunderRule43oftheRulesofCourtor,
in the alternative, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules, with application
for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. It was docketed as CA
G.R.SPNo.81940.Itallegedseriouserrorsoffactandlawand/orgraveabuseofdiscretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartofthearbitrator.

Respondent,ontheotherhand,filedapetitionforconfirmationofarbitralawardbefore
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofQuezonCity,Branch93,docketedasCivilCaseNo.Q
0451822.

Consequently,petitionerfiledasupplementalpetitionintheCAseekingtoenjointhe
RTC of Quezon City from further proceeding with the hearing of respondent's petition for
confirmationofarbitralaward.Afterthepetitionwasadmittedbytheappellatecourt,theRTC
of Quezon City issued an order holding in abeyance any further action on respondent's
petitionastheassaileddecisionofthearbitratorhadalreadybecomethesubjectofanappeal

intheCA.Respondentfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutnoresolutionhasbeenissuedby
thelowercourttodate.

[8]

OnFebruary16,2005,theCArenderedtheassaileddecisiondismissingABSCBNs
petition for lack of jurisdiction. It stated that as the TOR itself provided that the arbitrator's
decisionshallbefinalandunappealableandthatnomotionforreconsiderationshallbefiled,
then the petition for review must fail. It ruled that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over
questionsrelatingtoarbitration.Itheldthattheonlyinstanceitcanexercisejurisdictionover
anarbitralawardisanappealfromthetrialcourt'sdecisionconfirming,vacatingormodifying
thearbitralaward.ItfurtherstatedthatapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesof
Courtisproperinarbitrationcasesonlyifthecourtsrefuseorneglecttoinquireintothefacts
ofanarbitrator'saward.ThedispositiveportionoftheCAdecisionread:

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebyDISMISSEDforlackofjurisdiction.The
application for a writ of injunction and temporary restraining order is likewise DENIED. The
RegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCityBranch93isdirectedtoproceedwiththetrialforthePetition
forConfirmationofArbitralAward.

SOORDERED.

Petitionermovedforreconsideration.Thesamewasdenied.Hence,thispetition.

Petitioner contends that the CA, in effect, ruled that: (a) it should have first filed a
petitiontovacatetheawardintheRTCandonlyincaseofdenialcoulditelevatethematter
totheCAviaapetitionforreviewunderRule43and(b)theassaileddecisionimpliedthatan
aggrievedpartytoanarbitralawarddoesnothavetheoptionofdirectlyfilingapetitionfor
reviewunderRule43orapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65withtheCAeveniftheissues
raisedpertaintoerrorsoffactandlaworgraveabuseofdiscretion,asthecasemaybe,and
not dependent upon such grounds as enumerated under Section 24 (petition to vacate an

arbitralaward)ofRA876(theArbitrationLaw).Petitionerallegedseriouserroronthepartof
theCA.

The issue before us is whether or not an aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration

disputemayavailof,directlyintheCA,apetitionforreviewunderRule43orapetitionfor
certiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt,insteadoffilingapetitiontovacatetheaward
in the RTC when the grounds invoked to overturn the arbitrators decision are other than
thoseforapetitiontovacateanarbitralawardenumeratedunderRA876.

RA876itselfmandatesthatitistheCourtofFirstInstance,nowtheRTC,whichhas
jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration,

[9]

such as a petition to vacate an arbitral

award.

Section 24 of RA 876 provides for the specific grounds for a petition to vacate an
awardmadebyanarbitrator:

Sec.24.Groundsforvacatingaward.Inanyoneofthefollowingcases,the court
mustmakeanordervacatingtheawarduponthepetitionofanypartytothecontroversywhen
suchpartyprovesaffirmativelythatinthearbitrationproceedings:

(a)Theawardwasprocuredbycorruption,fraud,orotherunduemeansor

(b)Thattherewasevidentpartialityorcorruptioninthearbitratorsoranyofthemor

(c)Thatthearbitratorswereguiltyofmisconductinrefusingtopostponethehearingupon
sufficientcauseshown,orinrefusingtohearevidencepertinentandmaterialtothecontroversy
thatoneormoreofthearbitratorswasdisqualifiedtoactassuchundersectionninehereof,and
willfullyrefrainedfromdisclosingsuchdisqualificationsorofanyothermisbehaviorbywhichthe
rightsofanypartyhavebeenmateriallyprejudicedor

(d) That the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a
mutual,finalanddefiniteawarduponthesubjectmattersubmittedtothemwasnotmade.

Based on the foregoing provisions, the law itself clearly provides that the RTC must
issue an order vacating an arbitral award only in any one of the . . . cases enumerated

therein.Underthelegalmaximinstatutoryconstructionexpressiouniusestexclusioalterius,
theexplicitmentionofonethinginastatutemeanstheeliminationofothersnotspecifically
mentioned. As RA 876 did not expressly provide for errors of fact and/or law and grave
abuseofdiscretion(propergroundsforapetitionforreviewunderRule43andapetitionfor
certiorari under Rule 65, respectively) as grounds for maintaining a petition to vacate an
arbitralawardintheRTC,itnecessarilyfollowsthatapartymaynotavailofthelatterremedy
onthegroundsoferrorsoffactand/orlaworgraveabuseofdiscretiontooverturnanarbitral
award.

[10]
Adamsonv.CourtofAppeals
gaveamplewarningthatapetitiontovacatefiledin
theRTCwhichisnotbasedonthegroundsenumeratedinSection24ofRA876shouldbe
dismissed.Inthatcase,thetrialcourtvacatedthearbitralawardseeminglybasedongrounds
includedinSection24ofRA876butacloserreadingthereofrevealedotherwise.Onappeal,
theCAreversedthedecisionofthetrialcourtandaffirmedthearbitralaward.Inaffirmingthe
CA,weheld:

TheCourtofAppeals,inreversingthetrialcourt'sdecisionheldthatthenullificationofthe
decision of the Arbitration Committee was not based on the grounds provided by the Arbitration
Law and that xxx private respondents (petitioners herein) have failed to substantiate with any
evidence their claim of partiality. Significantly, even as respondent judge ruled against the
arbitrator's award, he could not find fault with their impartiality and integrity. Evidently, the
nullificationoftheawardrenderedatthecaseatbarwasnotmadeonthebasisofanyofthe
groundsprovidedbylaw.

xxxxxxxxx

Itisclear,therefore,thattheawardwasvacatednotbecauseofevidentpartialityof
thearbitratorsbutbecausethelatterinterpretedthecontractinawaywhichwasnotfavorableto
herein petitioners and because it considered that herein private respondents, by submitting the
controversytoarbitration,wasseekingtorenegeonitsobligationsunderthecontract.

xxxxxxxxx

ItisclearthenthattheCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtnotbecausethelatter
reviewed the arbitration award involved herein, but because the respondent appellate court
foundthatthetrialcourthadnolegalbasisforvacatingtheaward.(Emphasissupplied).

Incasesnotfallingunderanyoftheaforementionedgroundstovacateanaward,the
CourthasalreadymadeseveralpronouncementsthatapetitionforreviewunderRule43ora
petitionforcertiorariunderRule65maybeavailedofintheCA.Whichonewoulddepend
onthegroundsrelieduponbypetitioner.

InLuzonDevelopmentBankv.AssociationofLuzonDevelopmentBankEmployees,
[11]
the Court held that a voluntary arbitrator is properly classified as a quasijudicial
instrumentalityandis,thus,withintheambitofSection9(3)oftheJudiciaryReorganization
Act,asamended.Underthissection,theCourtofAppealsshallexercise:

xxxxxxxxx

(3)Exclusiveappellatejurisdictionoverallfinaljudgments,decisions,resolutions,ordersor
awardsofRegionalTrialCourtsandquasijudicialagencies,instrumentalities,boardsor
commissions,includingtheSecuritiesandExchangeCommission,theEmployeesCompensation
CommissionandtheCivilServiceCommission,exceptthosefallingwithintheappellate
jurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewiththeConstitution,theLaborCodeofthe
PhilippinesunderPresidentialDecreeNo.442,asamended,theprovisionsofthisActandof
subparagraph(1)ofthethirdparagraphandsubparagraph(4)ofthefourthparagraphofSection17
oftheJudiciaryActof1948.(Emphasissupplied)

As such, decisions handed down by voluntary arbitrators fall within the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the CA. This decision was taken into consideration in approving
Section1ofRule43oftheRulesofCourt.

[12]
Thus:

SECTION1.Scope.ThisRuleshallapplytoappealsfromjudgmentsorfinalordersof
theCourtofTaxAppealsandfromawards,judgments,finalordersorresolutionsoforauthorized
byanyquasijudicialagencyintheexerciseofitsquasijudicialfunctions.Amongtheseagencies
aretheCivilServiceCommission,CentralBoardofAssessmentAppeals,SecuritiesandExchange
Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission,
Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National
Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications
Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act Number 6657, Government
ServiceInsuranceSystem,EmployeesCompensationCommission,AgriculturalInventionsBoard,
Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments,
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
(Emphasissupplied)

This rule was cited in Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana,

Hotelv.Borromeo,

[13]
Manila Midtown

[14]
[15]
andNipponPaintEmployeesUnionOlaliav.CourtofAppeals.

Thesecasesheldthattheproperremedyfromtheadversedecisionofavoluntaryarbitrator,if
errors of fact and/or law are raised, is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court. Thus, petitioner's contention that it may avail of a petition for review under Rule 43
underthecircumstancesofthiscaseiscorrect.

Astopetitioner'sargumentsthatapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65mayalsobe
resortedto,weholdthesametobeinaccordancewiththeConstitutionandjurisprudence.

Section1ofArticleVIIIofthe1987Constitutionprovidesthat:

SECTION1.ThejudicialpowershallbevestedinoneSupremeCourtandinsuchlower
courtsasmaybeestablishedbylaw.

Judicialpowerincludesthedutyofthecourtsofjusticetosettleactualcontroversies
involvingrightswhicharelegallydemandableandenforceable,andtodeterminewhetherornot
therehasbeenagraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthe
partofanybranchorinstrumentalityoftheGovernment.(Emphasissupplied)

Asmaybegleanedfromtheabovestatedprovision,itiswellwithinthepowerand
jurisdictionoftheCourttoinquirewhetheranyinstrumentalityoftheGovernment,suchasa
voluntary arbitrator, has gravely abused its discretion in the exercise of its functions and
prerogatives.Anyagreementstipulatingthatthedecisionofthearbitratorshallbefinaland
unappealableandthatnofurtherjudicialrecourseifeitherpartydisagreeswiththewholeor
any part of the arbitrator's award may be availed of cannot be held to preclude in proper
cases the power of judicial review which is inherent in courts.

[16]

We will not hesitate to

reviewavoluntaryarbitrator'sawardwherethereisashowingofgraveabuseofauthorityor

[17]
discretionandsuchisproperlyraisedinapetitionforcertiorari
andthereisnoappeal,nor
anyplain,speedyremedyinthecourseoflaw.

[18]

[19]
Significantly, Insular Savings Bank v. Far East Bank and Trust Company
definitively outlined several judicial remedies an aggrieved party to an arbitral award may
undertake:

(1)apetitionintheproperRTCtoissueanordertovacatetheawardonthegroundsprovided
forinSection24ofRA876
(2)apetitionforreviewintheCAunderRule43oftheRulesofCourtonquestionsoffact,of
law,ormixedquestionsoffactandlawand
(3)apetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtshouldthearbitratorhaveacted
withoutorinexcessofhisjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolack
orexcessofjurisdiction.

Nevertheless,althoughpetitionerspositiononthejudicialremediesavailabletoitwas
correct,wesustainthedismissalofitspetitionbytheCA.Theremedypetitioneravailedof,
entitled alternative petition for review under Rule 43 or petition for certiorari under Rule
65,waswrong.

Timeandagain,wehaveruledthattheremediesofappealandcertiorariaremutually
exclusiveandnotalternativeorsuccessive.

[20]

ProperissuesthatmayberaisedinapetitionforreviewunderRule43pertaintoerrors
offact,lawormixedquestionsoffactandlaw.

[21]
WhileapetitionforcertiorariunderRule

65 should only limit itself to errors of jurisdiction, that is, grave abuse of discretion
amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.

[22]
Moreover, it cannot be availed of where

appealistheproperremedyorasasubstituteforalapsedappeal.

[23]

Inthecaseatbar,thequestionsraisedbypetitionerinitsalternativepetitionbeforethe
CAwerethefollowing:

A. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND/OR

GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT THE BROADCAST OF
WINSWEEKLYWASDULYAUTHORIZEDBYABSCBN.

B. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND/OR

GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT THE UNAUTHORIZED
BROADCASTDIDNOTCONSTITUTEMATERIALBREACHOFTHEAGREEMENT.

C. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND/OR

GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT WINS SEASONABLY
CUREDTHEBREACH.

D. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND/OR

GRAVELYABUSEDHISDISCRETIONINRULINGTHATTEMPERATEDAMAGESIN
THEAMOUNTOFP1,166,955.00MAYBEAWARDEDTOWINS.

E. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND/OR

GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE
UNREASONABLEAMOUNTANDUNCONSCIONABLEAMOUNTOFP850,000.00.

F.THEERRORCOMMITTEDBYTHESOLEARBITRATORISNOTASIMPLE
ERROR OF JUDGMENT OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION. IT IS GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETIONTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTION.

AcarefulreadingoftheassignederrorsrevealsthattherealissuescallingfortheCA's
resolutionwerelesstheallegedgraveabuseofdiscretionexercisedbythearbitratorandmore
about the arbitrators appreciation of the issues and evidence presented by the parties.
Therefore,theissuesclearlyfallundertheclassificationoferrorsoffactandlawquestions
which may be passed upon by the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. Petitioner
cleverly crafted its assignment of errors in such a way as to straddle both judicial remedies,
that is, by alleging serious errors of fact and law (in which case a petition for review under
Rule 43 would be proper) and grave abuse of discretion (because of which a petition for
certiorariunderRule65wouldbepermissible).

It must be emphasized that every lawyer should be familiar with the distinctions

betweenthetworemediesforitisnotthedutyofthecourtstodetermineunderwhichrulethe
petitionshouldfall.

[24]
Petitioner'sploywasfataltoitscause.Anappealtakeneither

tothis Court or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.

[25]

Thus,thealternativepetitionfiledintheCA,beinganinappropriatemodeofappeal,should
havebeendismissedoutrightbytheCA.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDENIED.TheFebruary16,2005decisionand
August16,2005resolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.81940directingthe
RegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity,Branch93toproceedwiththetrialofthepetitionfor
confirmationofarbitralawardisAFFIRMED.

Costsagainstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice


CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsin
theabovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriter
oftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.ReyesandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesGodardoA.Jacinto(retired)and
RosalindaAsuncionVicenteoftheSecondDivisionoftheCourtofAppeals.Rollo,pp.5971.
[2]
Id.,pp.7374.
[3]
TheCAerroneouslystatedthattheunauthorizedinsertionstookplaceonlysometimeinMay2002.
[4]
TheCAerroneouslyindicatedthedateasMay9,2000.
[5]
Notapartytothiscase.
[6]
Inarbitrationproceedings,theTORfunctionslikeaPreTrialOrderinjudicialproceedings,i.e.itcontrolsthecourseof
thetrial,unlessitiscorrectedformanifestandpalpableerrors.
[7]
DecisiondatedJanuary9,2004.Rollo,pp.108142.
[8]
Perpetitionforreviewoncertiorari,id.,p.18andpetitionersmemorandumfiledwiththisCourt,p.343.
[9]
Section4ofRA876provides:
Sec.4.Formofarbitrationagreement.
xxx
Themakingofacontractorsubmissionforarbitrationofanycontroversy,shallbedeemedaconsentofthepartiestothe
jurisdictionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceoftheprovinceorcitywhereanyofthepartiesresides,toenforcesuchcontractor
submission.
[10]
G.R.No.106879,27May1994,232SCRA602.
[11]
G.R.No.120319,6October1995,249SCRA162,168169.
[12]
NipponPaintEmployeesUnionOlaliav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.159010,19November2004,443SCRA286,290.
[13]
G.R.No.152456,28April2004,428SCRA239,243244.
[14]
G.R.No.138305,22September2004,438SCRA653,656657.
[15]
Supraat290291.
[16]
ChungFuIndustries(Phils.)v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.96283,25February1992,206SCRA545,552555.
[17]
Id.,p.556,citingOceanicBicDivision(FFW)v.Romero,No.L43890,16July1984,130SCRA392.SeealsoMaranaw
HotelsandResortsCorp.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.103215,6November1992,215SCRA501,wherewesustainedthe
CA decision dismissing the petition for certiorari filed before it as the voluntary arbitrator did not gravely abuse his
discretionindecidingthearbitralcasebeforehim.Weemphasizedthereinthatdecisionsofvoluntaryarbitratorsarefinal
andunappealableexceptwhenthereiswantofjurisdiction,graveabuseofdiscretion,violationofdueprocess,denialof
substantialjustice,orerroneousinterpretationofthelaw.
[18]
AssetPrivatizationTrustv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.121171,29December1998,300SCRA579,600601.
[19]
G.R.No.141818,22June2006,492SCRA145,156.

[20]
Sebastianv.Morales,G.R.No.141116,17February2003,397SCRA549,561OrientalMedia,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,
G.R.No.80127,6December1995,250SCRA647,653Hipolitov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.10847879,21February
1994,230SCRA191,204FederationofFreeWorkersv.Inciong,G.R.No.49983,20April1992,208SCRA157,164
andManilaElectricCompanyv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.88396,4July1990,187SCRA200,205.
[21]
RULESOFCOURT,Rule43,Sec.3.
[22]
RULESOFCOURT,Rule65,Sec.1.
[23]
OrientalMedia,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,Hipolitov.CourtofAppeals,FederationofFreeWorkersv.Inciong, and
ManilaElectricCompanyv.CourtofAppeals,supra.
[24]
Chuav.Santos,G.R.No.132467,18October2004,440SCRA365,372373,citingparagraph4(e)ofSupremeCourt
Circular No. 290 datedMarch 9, 1990, GuidelinestobeObservedinAppeals to theCourtofAppeals andtheSupreme
Court,towit:
e)Dutyofcounsel. It is, therefore, incumbent upon every attorney who would seek review of a judgment or order
promulgatedagainsthisclienttomakesureofthenatureoftheerrorsheproposestoassign,whetherthesebeoffactorlaw
thenuponsuchbasistoascertaincarefullywhichCourthasappellatejurisdictionandfinally,tofollowscrupulouslythe
requisites for appeal prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to his
client'scause.
[25]
Ybaezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.117499,9February1996,253SCRA540,547,citingparagraph4ofSupremeCourt
Circular No. 290 datedMarch 9, 1990, GuidelinestobeObservedinAppeals to theCourtofAppeals andtheSupreme
Court.Thus:
4.ErroneousAppeals.AnappealtakentoeithertheSupremeCourtortheCourtofAppealsbythewrongorinappropriate
modeshallbedismissed.