REMEDIAL LAW | HAO

Appeals
Dacquital v. LM Engineering Corporation
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; While the right to appeal is a statutory and not a natural right, it is
nonetheless an essential part of our judicial system; Litigants should have the amplest opportunity for the
proper and just disposition of their cause—free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural
technicalities.—The NLRC properly took cognizance of the appeal of all the named complainants even though
it was signed by only one of them. While the right to appeal is a statutory and not a natural right, it is
nonetheless an essential part of our judicial system. Courts are, therefore, advised to proceed with caution,
so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. Litigants should have the amplest opportunity for the
proper and just disposition of their cause—free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural
technicalities. Thus, contrary to respondents’ claim, the decision had not attained finality even as to those
who did not sign the appeal memorandum. Dacuital vs. L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation, 629 SCRA 702,
G.R. No. 176748 September 1, 2010

D.M. Ferrer & Associates v. UST

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to
question the dismissal of an action against one of the parties while the main case is still pending.—In Jan-Dec
Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 481 SCRA 556 (2006), we held that a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 is the proper remedy to question the dismissal of an action against one of the parties while the main case
is still pending. This is the general rule in accordance with Rule 41, Sec. 1(g). D.M. Ferrer & Associates
Corporation vs. University of Santo Tomas, 664 SCRA 784, G.R. No. 189496 February 1, 2012

Neypes v. CA
Remedial Law; Appeals; The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; It is merely a
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.—
First and foremost, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure
to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. The period to appeal is fixed by both statute and
procedural rules.
Same; Same; An appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed
from.—Based on the foregoing, an appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or
final order appealed from. A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing
more for the court to do with respect to it. It is an adjudication on the merits which, considering the evidence
presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are; or it may be
an order or judgment that dismisses an action.
 REMEDIAL LAW | HAO

Same; Same; Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of
appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or
motion for reconsideration to standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules.—To standardize the
appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court
deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional
Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration. Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, 469 SCRA 633, G.R. No. 141524 September 14, 2005

Ong v. Tating
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeal; Correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by the CFI (RTC).—
A "petition for review" is the correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by a CFI (RTC) in the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, i.e., when it decides a case appealed to it from the inferior court. In such a case, the
appeal is not a matter of right, its acceptance being discretionary on the Court of Appeals, which "may give
it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact
or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed." On
the other hand, when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the correct
mode of elevating the judgment to the Court of Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or appeal by writ of error,
involving merely the filing of a notice of appeal—except only if the appeal is taken in special proceedings and
other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under the law, in which event the filing of a record on
appeal is additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely questions of law or any of
the other cases (except criminal cases as stated hereunder) specified in Section 5(2), Article X of the
Constitution, it should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with
Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court. However, in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment, the appeal to the Supreme Court is by ordinary appeal on both questions of fact and law.
In cases where the death penalty is imposed, there is an automatic review by the Supreme Court. (Sec. 3 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure) Ong vs. Tating, 149 SCRA 265, No. L-61042 April 15, 1987

UMC v. Velasco

Cheesman v. IAC
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeal; Correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by the CFI (RTC).—
A "petition for review" is the correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by a CFI (RTC) in the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, i.e., when it decides a case appealed to it from the inferior court. In such a case, the
appeal is not a matter of right, its acceptance being discretionary on the Court of Appeals, which "may give
it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact
or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed." On
the other hand, when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the correct
mode of elevating the judgment to the Court of Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or appeal by writ of error,
involving merely the filing of a notice of appeal—except only if the appeal is taken in special proceedings and
 REMEDIAL LAW | HAO

other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under the law, in which event the filing of a record on
appeal is additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely questions of law or any of
the other cases (except criminal cases as stated hereunder) specified in Section 5(2), Article X of the
Constitution, it should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with
Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court. However, in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment, the appeal to the Supreme Court is by ordinary appeal on both questions of fact and law.
In cases where the death penalty is imposed, there is an automatic review by the Supreme Court. (Sec. 3 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure)

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeal; Correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by the CFI (RTC).—
A "petition for review" is the correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by a CFI (RTC) in the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, i.e., when it decides a case appealed to it from the inferior court. In such a case, the
appeal is not a matter of right, its acceptance being discretionary on the Court of Appeals, which "may give
it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact
or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed." On
the other hand, when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the correct
mode of elevating the judgment to the Court of Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or appeal by writ of error,
involving merely the filing of a notice of appeal—except only if the appeal is taken in special proceedings and
other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under the law, in which event the filing of a record on
appeal is additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely questions of law or any of
the other cases (except criminal cases as stated hereunder) specified in Section 5(2), Article X of the
Constitution, it should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with
Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court. However, in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment, the appeal to the Supreme Court is by ordinary appeal on both questions of fact and law.
In cases where the death penalty is imposed, there is an automatic review by the Supreme Court. (Sec. 3 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure) Ong vs. Tating, 149 SCRA 265, No. L-61042 April 15, 1987

Sumbingco v. CA
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeal; Correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by the CFI (RTC).—
A "petition for review" is the correct mode of appeal from a judgment rendered by a CFI (RTC) in the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, i.e., when it decides a case appealed to it from the inferior court. In such a case, the
appeal is not a matter of right, its acceptance being discretionary on the Court of Appeals, which "may give
it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact
or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed." On
the other hand, when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the correct
mode of elevating the judgment to the Court of Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or appeal by writ of error,
involving merely the filing of a notice of appeal—except only if the appeal is taken in special proceedings and
other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under the law, in which event the filing of a record on
appeal is additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely questions of law or any of
the other cases (except criminal cases as stated hereunder) specified in Section 5(2), Article X of the
Constitution, it should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with
 REMEDIAL LAW | HAO

Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court. However, in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment, the appeal to the Supreme Court is by ordinary appeal on both questions of fact and law.
In cases where the death penalty is imposed, there is an automatic review by the Supreme Court. (Sec. 3 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure)

New York Marine v. CA

Remedial Law; Special Civil Action; Certiorari; Where the court has jurisdiction over the case even if its
findings are not correct they would at most constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible
by certiorari.—The proper remedy available to petitioner from a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. Mere errors of judgment cannot be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari.
Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision—not the
jurisdiction of the court to render said decision—the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for
certiorari. Erroneous findings and conclusions do not render the appellate court vulnerable to the corrective
writ of certiorari. For where the court has jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, they
would, at most, constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. New York
Marine Managers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 416, G.R. No. 111837 October 24, 1995
Ybañez v. CA
Appeals; Petition for Certiorari; Pleadings and Practice; A party seeking review of a decision of the Court of
Appeals should first move for reconsideration of the assailed decision before going to the Supreme Court.—
At the outset, we note that petitioners immediately filed this petition without even filing a motion for
reconsideration of the assailed decision thereby depriving respondent court of the opportunity to correct at
the first instance an error which it may have committed. We see no cogent reason and none was persuasively
presented to excuse petitioners from their failure to file a motion for reconsideration.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court cannot tolerate the practice of categorizing a petition to be “both
under Rule 65 and Rule 45, Rules of Court,” as the petition cannot be subsumed simultaneously under Rule
45 and Rule 65, and neither may petitioners delegate upon the court the task of determining under which
rule the petition should fall.—Also glaring is the ambivalent, if not irresolute, posture taken by the petitioners
by categorizing this petition to be “both under Rule 65 and Rule 45, Rules of Court” in an attempt, apparently,
to evade the dismissal of the petition based on a wrong mode of appeal in accordance with Circular No. 2-90
issued on March 9, 1990. The court cannot tolerate this practice much less the seeming ignorance of the law
on appeals. This petition cannot be subsumed simultaneously under Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, and neither may petitioners delegate upon the court the task of determining under which rule the
petition should fall. Under Circular No. 2-9, wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, as in this case, merits an
outright dismissal. Ybañez vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 540, G.R. No. 117499 February 9, 1996

Macawili Gold Mining and Dev’t. Co. v. CA

Same; Appeals; Summary of the rules on appeals from the judgments of the regional trial courts in civil
cases.—The rules on appeals from the judgments of the regional trial courts in civil cases may thus be
 REMEDIAL LAW | HAO

summarized as follows: (1) Original Jurisdiction—In all cases decided by the regional trial courts in the
exercise of their original jurisdiction, appeal may be made to: (a) Court of Appeals—where the appellant
raises questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, by filing a mere notice of appeal.(b) Supreme
Court—where the appellant solely raises questions of law, by filing a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45. (2) Appellate Jurisdiction—All appeals from judgments rendered by the regional trial courts in the
exercise of their appellate jurisdiction, whether the appellant raises questions of fact, of law, or mixed
questions of fact and law, shall be by filing a petition for review under Rule 42. Macawiwili Gold Mining and
Development Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 602, G.R. No. 115104 October 12, 1998

Land Bank of the Phils. v. Ramos

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Summary of the Rules on Appeals.—In Macawiwili Gold Mining and
Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 602 (1998), we summarized the rule on appeals as
follows: (1) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, appeal may be made to
the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal where the appellant raises questions of fact or mixed questions
of fact and law. (2) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction where the
appellant raises only questions of law, the appeal must be taken to the Supreme Court on a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45. (3) All appeals from judgments rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, regardless of whether the appellant raises questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed
questions of fact and law, shall be brought to the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review under Rule
42.

Same; Same; Same; Questions of Law; Questions of Fact; 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.—A question of law arises when there is doubt as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the
truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination
of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue
must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue
invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, 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. Land Bank of the Philippines
vs. Ramos, 685 SCRA 540, G.R. No. 181664 November 14, 2012