Photo from Pexels | KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Appeal is the remedy available to a litigant seeking to reverse or modify a judgment on the merits of a case. The right to appeal is not constitutional or natural, and is not part of due process but is a mere statutory privilege. Thus, it must be availed in keeping with the manner set by law and is lost by a litigant who does not comply with the rules. (Cortal v. Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises, G.R. No. 199107, August 30, 2017)
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the lower court or grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. This remedy can be availed of when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Cunanan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 205573, August 17, 2016)
Requisites for an Appeal
In the case of Chipongian v. Benitez-Lirio, G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015, the Supreme Court discussed that an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. Section 1 of Rule 41 enunciates the final judgment rule by providing that an appeal “may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.”
However, there are exceptions to the rule that an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, such as:
- The decision, judgment or final order of first level courts in cases covered by the Rules on Small Claims (Revised Rules on Small Claims Cases, Rule IV, Sec. 24, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended, effective April 11, 2022) and
- The Regional Trial Court on the appeal covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure. (Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Rule III, Sec. 2, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended, effective April 11, 2022)
Modes of Appeal
Rule 40 – Appeal From Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts (RTC)
Rule 41 – Ordinary Appeal (for cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction)
Rule 42 – Petition for Review (for cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction)
Rule 43 – Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals
Rule 45 – Petition for Review by Certiorari
Rule 64 – Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit
Requisites for a Petition for Certiorari
In the case of Alfredo Tagle vs. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 172299 April 22, 2008, the Supreme Court reiterated that for a petition for certiorari to prosper, the essential requisites that have to concur are:
- the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
- such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
- there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The Court further clarified the meaning of “without jurisdiction” and “excess of jurisdiction”.
The phrase “without jurisdiction” means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority.
“Excess of jurisdiction” occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority; or results when an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer (to do) is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. While that of “grave abuse of discretion” implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.