Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Court of Appeals and Blue Cross and ordered the reinstatement of the appeal “in keeping with
Insurance(G.R. No. 99357. January 27, 1992) the ends of substantial justice.”
TOPIC: Nature of the Right to Appeal (The right to appeal ISSUE/S: Whether or not the respondent court committed an
is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a error in reinstating the appeal when it has no jurisdiction to do
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner so, there being no notice of appeal having been filed with it.
and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party
who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the RULING:
requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal The CA erred in reconsidering its previous resolution. The
is lost.) dismissal of said appeal is proper and fully justified by private
respondent's failure to file a notice of appeal with the Court of
FACTS: Appeals as required by Republic Act No. 5434 for the
Petitioner alleged that in consideration of the annual payment perfection of its appeal from the decision of the Insurance
of P7,535.00, private respondent (PR) executed a policy of Commission.
sickness and accident insurance. On August 12, 1989,
petitioner was admitted to a hospital where she was diagnosed The Court of Appeals has been vested with exclusive appellate
and operated on for cholecystitis. Petitioner paid bills in the jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
aggregate sum of P48,934.05. However, PR wrongfully orders or awards of quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
refused to pay petitioner which is entitled to recover under the boards or commissions, except those falling within the
policy, reasoning that under the insurance policy, among the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. During
exclusions or non-compensable sickness are those which have the period relevant to and involved in the appeal from the
pre-existed before the effective date of the insurance of which Insurance Commission to respondent court, subject of the
the insured was aware or should reasonably be aware of; and present review, the appeal to the Court of Appeals from said
cholecystitis was a pre-existing condition, hence non- quasi-judicial body was governed by the provisions of
compensable. Republic Act No. 5434 insofar as the same are not inconsistent
with the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129:
The Insurance Commission concluded that petitioner’s illness
was not a pre-existing disease and therefore, fully "In an appeal from quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of
compensable. Hence, it ordered PR to pay tha amount with Appeals under Republic Act No. 5434 and Section 22(c) of the
legal interest from date of filing of complaint until fully Interim Rules, the appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of
satisfied plus P5,000 attorney’s fees. appeal with the Court of Appeals and with the quasi-
judicial body within fifteen days from notice of the ruling,
According to the Court of Appeals (para dali ra masabtan kay award, order, decision or judgment; or in case a motion
mga dates raba ni, take note lang sa mga gi-bold) for reconsideration is filed within said period, then within
September 27, 1990 - the copy of said decision was ten days from notice of the resolution denying the motion
received by private respondent for reconsideration (Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 5434). No
October 15, 1990 – [more than fifteen (15) days extension of time to file such a notice of appeal is needed,
allowed by Section 2, Republic Act No. 5434] private much less allowed."
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which
petitioner opposed It is, therefore, indubitable that to perfect an appeal, notice
December 13, 1990 – the Insurance Commission must be filed both with the Court of Appeals and with the
denied said motion for reconsideration board, commission or agency that made or rendered the ruling,
December 17, 1990 – private respondent filed a notice award, order, decision or judgment appealed from. In the
of appeal with the Insurance Commission instant case, even assuming that a notice of appeal was
March 15, 1991 – CA dismissed the appeal on the ground seasonably filed with the Insurance Commission, no such
that it was filed out of time and that private respondent notice of appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals. The
did not duly file a copy of its notice of appeal with said failure of petitioner to comply with the requirements of
respondent court as mandated by RA 5434 law for the perfection of its appeal is fatal to its present
remedial attempt. It renders the decision of the Insurance
Respondent court noted that under the aforesaid Section 2 of Commission final and executory and the same can no longer
Republic Act No. 5434, private respondent had ten (10) days be a subject of review. The perfection of an appeal in the
to file an appeal from receipt of order denying its motion for manner and within the period laid down by law is not only
reconsideration (mao ni ang Dec 13 order but received the mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an
order the day after so Dec 14) appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the
right of appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court
On its May 8, 1991 resolution after Motion for from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.
Reconsideration was filed by PR, respondent court
subsequently agreed that PR filed its notice of appeal with the The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due
Insurance Commission within the said 10-day period, but no process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be
such notice was filed with the CA itself as required by Section exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the
3, RA 5343. Nevertheless, the Special Third Division of provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the
respondent court resolved to reconsider its original resolution
same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing April 17, 1995 – however, petitioner filed a "Motion
to do so, the right to appeal is lost. entreating Hon. Enrique C. Garrovillo to consider whether
to continue presiding over the cases and to inhibit Fiscal
It is true that in some cases the filing of an appeal was allowed Diosdado D. Hermosa from appearing as public
where a stringent application of the rules would have denied it, prosecutor in the cases."
but only when it would serve the demands of substantial April 21, 1995 – motion to inhibit was denied by the RTC
justice and in the exercise of the court's equity jurisdiction. In and petitioner was ordered to present her evidence on
the case at bar, however, the interests of justice would not be April 24 and 26, 1995 and on May 9 and 12, 1995.
served by a policy of liberality, nor has the private respondent
advanced any compelling reason to warrant the same. April 24, 1995 – petitioner failed to appear at the hearing
Moreover, relaxation of the rules is not called for since the thus, RTC declared her bail bonds forfeited and ordered
issues raised are mainly factual. For a party to seek exception the bondsman to produce petitioner within 30 days and
for its failure to comply strictly with the statutory show cause why no judgment should be rendered against
requirements for perfecting its appeal, strong compelling her for the amount of the bonds
reasons such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a April 27, 1995 – RTC received an urgent motion for
grave miscarriage thereof must be shown, in order to warrant postponement from petitioner's counsel, asking for the
the Court's suspension of the rules. resetting of the May 9 and 12, 1995 hearings. Reasons
kay sa May 9, counsel was scheduled to attend to some
urgent family engagement while on May 12, counsel
Case #2 Teope v. People (G.R. No. 149687. April 14, 2004) already had prior engagements with other courts. The
RTC acceded to the motion and reset the hearings to June
TOPIC: Nature of the Right to Appeal (Petitioner is barred 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13, 1995, but declared these hearings to be
from availing of the remedies allowed by the rules against the "intransferable considering the fact that the termination of
judgment of the RTC, one of which is the right to file an these cases has been much delayed by the frequent
appeal with the Court of Appeals, the reason for this rule is absence and/or postponements made by the Accused.
because once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, June 2, 1995 – petitioner filed a motion for
or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his reconsideration of the April 21, 1995 order (motion to
standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the inhibit).
jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any July 5, 1995 – RTC denied the motion for
right to seek relief from the court.) reconsideration.
July 6, 1995 – RTC rendered judgment against the bonds
FACTS: for failure of the bondsman to produce petitioner and
(overview lang ning mga dates aron han-ay but TN sa mga
submit an explanation for the latter's failure to appear at
naka-bold)
the April 24, 1995 hearing.
January 19, 1994 – Petitioner was charged with 2 counts
January 30, 1996 – as prayed for by petitioner's counsel,
of violation of B.P. 22 before the RTC of Dumaguete
the RTC issued an order again resetting the hearing to
City.
April 7, 1997.
December 9, 1995 – After the prosecution rested its case, February 4, 1997, the RTC issued another order declaring
petitioner filed a Demurrer to the Evidence
petitioner as a fugitive from justice and a warrant of arrest
January 9, 1995 – The RTC denied said demurrer was issued against her (tagam!!!)
January 21, 1999 – Notice of Appeal from the denial
was filed by petitioner Petitioner's counsel then filed an Omnibus Motion on May 19,
February 5, 1999 – The RTC denied due course to the 1997 asserting that petitioner cannot be tried in absentia
Notice of Appeal because she was not notified of the subsequent trials after the
March 16, 1999 – RTC denied motion for reconsideration, forfeiture of her bail bonds. Consequently, petitioner's counsel
which petitioner timely filed prayed that the two criminal cases against her be archived and
May 24, 1999 – Petitioner then filed a petition for that an alias warrant of arrest be issued. The RTC denied the
mandamus with the Court of Appeals Omnibus Motion for lack of merit on October 30, 1998. In the
On October 19, 2000 and August 6, 2001, respectively – same order, the criminal cases were deemed submitted for
CA promulgated the assailed Decision and Resolution decision and an alias warrant of arrest was issued. It was only
dismissing the petition and denying the subsequent on January 18, 1999 that RTC rendered a Joint Judgment
motion for reconsideration. finding petitioner guilty on both counts of violation of BP 22.
Upon verification from the records of the case, it appears that Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to which the RTC denied
a lot has transpired between the bold dates above. (LABAD due course on the ground that, being a fugitive from justice,
JUD KAAYO NI NA PART, basta kaning blue kay what petitioner has lost her right to appeal. Unable to convince the
transpired between those dates. Not that important but basa RTC to give due course to her appeal, petitioner's counsel
lang gamay aron masabtan) sought redress with the Court of Appeals by filing a petition
The RTC ordered that hearings for the reception of petitioner's for mandamus.
evidence be set. Petitioner's counsel himself suggested that the
hearings be held on April 17, 19, 21, 24, 25 and 26, 1995. ISSUE/S: Whether or not CA committed error for dismissing
the case for mandamus
his capacity either as chairman of the board or as president of
Del Monte, Lapanday and Macondray; (3) that Macondray had
RULING: thereafter been appointed — allegedly upon the insistence of
NO. There was no error on the part of CA. Section 6 of Rule Lapanday — as broker, for the purpose of securing charter
120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly hire contracts from Del Monte; (4) that pursuant to the joint
provides that: venture agreement, Madrigal had purchased a vessel by
“If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the obtaining a P10,000,000 bank loan; and (5) that contrary to
accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose their representations and guarantees and despite demands,
the remedies available in these Rules against the judgment Lapanday and Lorenzo had allegedly been unable to deliver
and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days those Del Monte charter hire contracts.
from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may
surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these The insolvency court (Branch 49) declared petitioner
remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the insolvent. The respondents filed their respective Motions to
scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was Dismiss the complaint in Branch 36.
for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.” Branch 36 granted the motion for failure of the complaint to
state a cause of action. The court opined that when petitioner
There is no question as it is very obvious that petitioner was declared insolvent, it lost its right to file a complaint for
escaped after her arraignment. Subsequently, the trial was damages since the exclusive right to institute said actions is
ordered to continue but after the accused failed to appear, the now vested with the court-appointed assignee.
RTC terminated the trial and, thereafter, promulgated the Joint
Judgment of conviction. During that time petitioner was at Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
large. She remains at large even while her counsel continues to denied. Petitioner then went to the CA on a petition for
file various pleadings on her behalf before the RTC, the Court certiorari. CA then issued a Resolution requiring petitioner to
of Appeals and this Court. explain why its Petition should not be dismissed outright, on
the ground that the questioned Orders should have been
Under the Rules of Court, petitioner is barred from availing of elevated by ordinary appeal. It subsequently ruled that since
the remedies allowed by the rules against the judgment of the the main issue in the instant case was purely legal, the Petition
RTC, one of which is the right to file an appeal with the Court could be treated as one for review as an exception to the
of Appeals. The reason for this rule is because once an general rule that certiorari was not proper when appeal was
accused escapes from prison or confinement, or jumps bail or available. Thus, the respondents moved for reconsideration.
flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and
unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, RULING OF THE CA:
he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the Granted respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration and
court. dismissing Madrigal's Petition for Certiorari. The CA opined
that an order granting a motion to dismiss was final and thus
Thus, having no right to appeal the RTC decision to the Court the proper subject of an appeal, not certiorari. Furthermore,
of Appeals, the petition for mandamus cannot prosper. even if the Petition could be treated as an appeal, it would still
Mandamus will only lie to compel the performance of a have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, according to the
ministerial duty and the petitioner must show a well-defined, CA. The appellate court held that the issues raised by
clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof. petitioner involved pure questions of law that should be
brought to the Supreme Court, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule
50 and Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
Case #3 Madrigal Transport Inc v. Lapanday Holdings
(G.R. No. 156067. August 11, 2004) ISSUE/S: Whether or not certiorari was the proper
remedy
TOPIC: Appeal as Distinguished from Certiorari (GR:
Where appeal is available, action for certiorari will not be RULING:
entertained) NO, ORDINARY APPEAL is the proper remedy and NOT
CERTIORARI.
FACTS:
Petitioner ("Madrigal") filed a Petition for Voluntary Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for
Insolvency before the RTC of Manila Branch 49. certiorari will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Complaint for damages (including petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually
against Respondents Lapanday, et al before the RTC of exclusive, not alternative or successive. Hence, certiorari is
Manila branch 36. not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one's
own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned
In the latter action, Madrigal alleged (1) that it had entered such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that
into a joint venture agreement with Lapanday for the primary there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
purpose of operating vessels to service the shipping remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not
requirements of Del Monte Philippines, Inc.; (2) that it had prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of
done so on the strength of the representations of Lorenzo, in discretion.
to an appeal from the judgment; or where there is no appeal or
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of any plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any As to the period of filing – Ordinary appeals should be filed
other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior within fifteen (15) days from the notice of judgment or final
court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the
appellant must file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal
For certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must within thirty days from the said notice of judgment or final
concur: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or order. 4A petition for review should be filed and served within
any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) fifteen days from the notice of denial of the decision, or of the
such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess petitioner's timely filed motion for new trial or motion for
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to reconsideration. In an appeal by certiorari, the petition should
lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any be filed also within fifteen days from the notice of judgment or
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of final order, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new
law. trial or motion for reconsideration.
"Without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute On the other hand, a petition for certiorari should be filed not
lack of authority. There is "excess of jurisdiction" when the later than sixty (60) days from the notice of judgment, order,
court transcends its power or acts without any statutory or resolution. If a motion for new trial or motion for
authority. "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious reconsideration was timely filed, the period shall be counted
and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack from the denial of the motion.
or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in
an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, As to the need for a motion for reconsideration – A motion for
prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a
or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an
a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at opportunity to correct the alleged errors. Note also that this
all in contemplation of law. motion is a plain and adequate remedy expressly available
under the law. Such motion is not required before appealing a
Appeal and Certiorari Distinguished judgment or final order.
As to the purpose – Certiorari is a remedy designed for the Exception to the Rule
correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Not Established by Petitioner
The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a We are not unaware of instances when this Court has granted
writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of certiorari despite the availability of appeal. Where the
reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower exigencies of the case are such that the ordinary methods of
court — on the basis either of the law or the facts of the appeal may not prove adequate — either in point of
case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. promptness or completeness, so that a partial if not a total
Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has failure of justice could result — a writ of certiorari may still
jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond be issued. Petitioner cites some of these exceptions to justify
the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of the remedy it has undertaken with the appellate court, but
jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact — a mistake of these are not applicable to the present factual milieu.
judgment — appeal is the remedy.
Even assuming that the Order of the RTC was erroneous,
As to the manner of filing – Over an appeal, the CA exercises its error did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
its appellate jurisdiction and power of review. Over a Petitioner asserts that the trial court should not have dismissed
certiorari, the higher court uses its original jurisdiction in the Complaint or should have at least allowed the substitution
accordance with its power of control and supervision over the of the assignee in petitioner's stead. These alleged errors of
proceedings of lower courts. An appeal is thus a continuation judgment, however, do not constitute a despotic, capricious, or
of the original suit, while a petition for certiorari is an original whimsical exercise of power. On the contrary, petitioner
and independent action that was not part of the trial that had availed of certiorari because the 15-day period within which to
resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order complained file an appeal had already lapsed. Basic is the rule that
of. The parties to an appeal are the original parties to the certiorari is not a substitute for the lapsed remedy of appeal.
action. In contrast, the parties to a petition for certiorari are the
aggrieved party (who thereby becomes the petitioner) against As previously stressed, appeal — not certiorari — was the
the lower court or quasi-judicial agency, and the prevailing correct remedy to elevate the RTC's Order granting the Motion
parties (the public and the private respondents, respectively). to Dismiss. The appeal, which would have involved a pure
question of law, should have been filed with the Supreme
As to the subject matter – Only judgments or final orders and Court pursuant to Section 2(c) of Rule 41 and Section 2 of
those that the Rules of Court so declare are appealable. Since Rule 50, Rules of Court.
the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be
directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior
Case #4 Heirs of Reterta v. Sps Mores (G.R. No. 159941. Order of Dismissal which finally disposed of the case, and not
August 17, 2011) the denial of their MR. the general rule is that certiorari is
precluded as a remedy against the final order when appeal is
TOPIC: Appeal as Distinguished from Certiorari (EXC: available.
Certiorari can still be the proper remedy despite the
availability of appeal or other remedy if warranted by Nonetheless, SC considered Certiorari as the proper remedy
exceptional reasons such as: (a) when it is necessary to despite the availability of appeal or other remedy if warranted
prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where by exceptional reasons such as: (a) when it is necessary to
the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where
judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his
justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate and judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of
insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (f) justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate and
where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency.) insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (f)
where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency.
FACTS:
Teofilo Retera was granted a friar land in Cavite by virtue of Specifically, the Court has held that the availability of appeal
his open, exclusive and continued occupation for more than as a remedy does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent or
thirty (30) years. He died in 1983, leaving behind the land to preclude a party from making use of certiorari if appeal is not
his heirs, herein petitioners. The petitioners discovered in an adequate remedy, or an equally beneficial, or speedy
1999 that there was an affidavit purportedly executed by their remedy. It is inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other
father waiving his rights and interest over the land, and by legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without
virtue of such affidavit, a Sale Certificate and TCT was issued the writ, that must usually determine the propriety of
in favor of the respondents. certiorari. A remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if it will
promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the
The petitioners filed an action for quieting of title and judgment, order, or resolution of the lower court or agency. It
reconveyance with the RTC, alleging that such affidavit was a is understood, then, that a litigant need not mark time by
forgery and the sale certificate and TCT were procured resorting to the less speedy remedy of appeal in order to have
fraudulently. an order annulled and set aside for being patently void for
failure of the trial court to comply with the Rules of Court.
The respondents filed a motion to dismiss, insisting that the
RCT had no jurisdiction on the ground that the Director of Nor should the petitioner be denied the recourse despite
Lands had the exclusive power to the propriety of grant of certiorari not being available as a proper remedy against an
Friar lands, and to determine whether or not there is fraud in assailed order, because it is better on balance to look beyond
procuring the sales certificate. procedural requirements and to overcome the ordinary
disinclination to exercise supervisory powers in order that a
Agreeing with the ground, RTC granted the Motion to void order of a lower court may be controlled to make it
Dismiss. Upon receiving the Order of Dismissal on Nov 16, conformable to law and justice. Verily, the instances in which
2001, petitioner filed an MR on November 26, 2001. certiorari will issue cannot be defined, because to do so is to
However, the RTC denied the MR in its order, which was destroy the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the
received by the petitioners on March 20, 2002 thus prompting extraordinary writ. The wide breadth and range of the
them to file a petition for certiorari with the CA on May 15, discretion of the court are such that authority is not wanting to
2002. show that certiorari is more discretionary than either
prohibition or mandamus, and that in the exercise of
The CA dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari cannot superintending control over inferior courts, a superior court is
be used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case
considering that the order granting the Motion to Dismiss was "as the ends of justice may require." Thus, the writ will be
a final order against which the proper remedy was an appeal in granted whenever necessary to prevent substantial wrong
due course. Hence, the appeal to the SC. or to do substantial injustice.