Appeals; Period of Appeal; Fresh Period Rule (2003)

Question: Defendant X received an adverse Decision of the RTC in an ordinary

civil case on 02 January 2003. He filed a Notice of Appeal on 10 January 2003.
On the other hand, plaintiff A received the same Decision on 06 January 2003
and, on 19 January 2003, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision.
On 13 January 2003, defendant X filed a Motion withdrawing his notice of
appeal in order to file a Motion for New Trial which he attached. On 20 January
2003, the court denied A’s Motion for Reconsideration and X’s Motion to
Withdraw Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff A received the Order denying his Motion for
Reconsideration on 03 February 2003 and filed his Notice of Appeal on 05
February 2003. The court denied due course to A’s Notice of Appeal on the
ground that he period to appeal had already lapsed. 6% (a) Is the court’s denial
of X’s Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal proper? (b) Is the court’s denial of
due course to A’s appeal correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, the court’s denial of X’s Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal is not
proper, because the period of appeal of X has not yet expired. From January 2,
2003 when X received a copy of the adverse decision up to January 13, 2003
when he filed his withdrawal of appeal and Motion for New Trial, only ten (10)
days had elapsed and he had fifteen (15) days to do so. (b) No, the court’s
denial of due course to A’s appeal is not correct because the appeal was taken
on time. From January 6, 2003 when A received a copy of the decision up to
January 19,
2003 when he filed a Motion for Reconsideration, only twelve (12) days had
elapsed. Consequently, he had three (3) days from receipt on February 3, 2003
of the Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration within which to appeal. He
filed is notice of appeal on February 5, 2003, or only two (2) days later.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Since A’s Motion for Reconsideration was filed on
January 19, 2003 and it was denied on January 20, 2003, it was clearly not
set for hearing with at least three days’ notice. Therefore, the motion was pro
forma and did not interrupt the period of appeal which expired on January 21,
2003 or fifteen (15) days after notice of the decision on January 6, 2003.
NOTE: 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 RTC, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial
or motion for reconsideration. [Neypes et. al. vs. CA, G.R. No. 141524,
September 14, 2005]
Certiorari; Mode of Certiorari (2006)
Question:
Explain each mode of certiorari:
1. As a mode of appeal from the Regional Trial Court or the Court of Appeals to
the Supreme Court. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Certiorari as a mode of appeal is governed by Rule 45
of the Rules of Court which allows appeal from judgment, final order of
resolution of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, the RTC or other courts
whenever authorized by law to the Supreme Court by verified petition for
review raising only questions of law distinctly set forth.
2. As a special civil action from the Regional Trial Court or the Court of Appeals
to the Supreme Court. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Certiorari as a Special Civil Action is governed by Rule
65 of the Rules of Court when an aggrieved party may file a verified petition
against a decision, final order or resolution of a tribunal, body or board that
has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
3. As a mode of review of the decisions of the National Labor Relations
Commission and the Constitutional Commissions. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Certiorari as a mode of review of the decision of the
NLRC is elevated to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65, as held in the case of
St. Martin's Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998.
Certiorari as a mode of review from the Commission on Audit (COA) and
COMELEC is elevated to the Supreme Court within 30 days from notice of the
judgment, decision or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, as
provided for under the Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In the case
of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), review of its judgments is through
petitions for review under Sec. 5 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Certiorari; Rule 45 vs. Rule 65 (1998)
Question: Differentiate certiorari as an original action from certiorari as a
mode of appeal. |3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Certiorari as an original action and certiorari as a
mode of appeal may be distinguished as follows:
 1. The first is a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
while the second is an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan and the RTC under Rule 45.

2. The first can be filed only on the grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction
or grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
while the second is based on the errors of law of the lower court.

3. The first should be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed (Sec. 4. Rule 65),
while the second should be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial
of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time
after notice of the judgment. (Sec. 2, Rule 45).

4. The first cannot generally be availed of as a substitute for a lost appeal

under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45.

5. Under the first, the lower court is impleaded as a party respondent (Sec.
5 of Rule 65), while under the second, the lower court is not impleaded.
Certiorari; Rule 45 vs. Rule 65 (2005)
Question:
May the aggrieved party file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, instead of filing a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 thereof for the nullification of a decision
of the Court of Appeals in the exercise either of its original or appellate
jurisdiction? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: To NULLIFY A DECISION of the Court of Appeals the
aggrieved party should file a PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI in the
Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court instead of filing a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 except under very exceptional circumstances. A
long line of decisions of the Supreme Court, too numerous to mention, holds
that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. It should be noted, however,
when the Court of Appeals imposes the death penalty, or a lesser penalty for
offenses committed on such occasion, appeal by petition for review or ordinary
appeal. In cases when the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or a lesser penalty, appeal is by notice of appeal filed with the
Court of Appeals.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Remedies; Appeal to SC; Appeals to CA (2002)
Question:
a) What are the modes of appeal to the Supreme Court? (2%)
b) Comment on a proposal to amend Rule 122, Section 2(b), in relation to
Section 3(c), of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to provide for appeal to
the Court of Appeals from the decisions of the RTC in criminal cases, where the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, subject to the right
of the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The modes of appeal to the Supreme Court are: (a) APPEAL BY CERTIORARI
on pure questions of law under Rule 45 through a petition for review on
certiorari; and (b) ORDINARY APPEAL in criminal cases through a notice of
appeal from convictions imposing reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or
where a lesser penalty is involved but for offenses committed on the same
occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more
serious offense. (Rule 122, sec. 3) Convictions imposing the death penalty are
elevated through automatic review.
B. There is no constitutional objection to providing in the Rules of Court for an
appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decisions of the RTC in criminal cases
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment subject
to the right of the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court, because it does not
deprive the Supreme Court of the right to exercise ultimate review of the
judgments in such cases.
Remedies; Appeal; RTC to CA (1999)
Question:
a.) When is an appeal from the RTC to the Court of Appeals deemed perfected?
(2%}
b.) XXX received a copy of the RTC decision on June 9, 1999; YYY received it
on the next day, June 10, 1999. XXX filed a Notice of Appeal on June 15, 1999.
The parties entered into a compromise on June 16, 1999. On June 13, 1999,
YYY, who did not appeal, filed with the RTC a motion for approval of the
Compromise Agreement. XXX changed his mind and opposed the motion on
the ground that the RTC has no more jurisdiction. Rule on the motion
assuming that the records have not yet been forwarded to the CA. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a.) An appeal from the RTC to the Court of Appeals is deemed perfected as to
the appellant upon the filing of a notice of appeal in the RTC in due time or
within the reglementary period of appeal. An appeal by record on appeal is
deemed perfected as to the appellant with respect to the subject matter thereof
upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time. (Sec. 9, Rule 41)
b.) The contention of XXX that the RTC has no more jurisdiction over the case
is not correct because at the time that the motion to approve the compromise
had been filed, the period of appeal of YYY had not yet expired. Besides, even if
that period had already expired, the records of the case had not yet been
forwarded to the Court of Appeals. The rules provide that in appeals by notice
of appeal, the 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. (Sec. 9, third par., Rule 41)
The rules also provide that prior to the transmittal of the record, the court may,
among others, approve compromises. (Sec. 9, fifth par., Rule 41) (Note: June
13, the date of the filing of the motion for approval of the Compromise
Agreement, appears to be a clerical error)
Remedies; Appeal; Rule 45 vs. Rule 65 (1999)
Question:
a) Distinguish a petition for certiorari as a mode of appeal from a special civil
action for certiorari. (2%)
b) May a party resort to certiorari when appeal is still available? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI as a mode of appeal may be
distinguished from a special civil action for certiorari in that the petition for
certiorari as a mode of appeal is governed by Rule 45 and is filed from a
judgment or final order of the RTC, the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals,
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment appealed from or of the
denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time on
questions of law only (Secs. 1 and 2); SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR
CERTIORARI is governed by Rule 65 and is filed to annul or modify judgments,
orders or resolutions rendered or issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
when by: [email protected] Page 34 of 66 there is no appeal nor any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, to be filed within
sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution subject of the
petition. (Secs. 1 and 4.)
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
1) In appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, the petitioner and respondent are the
original parties to the action and the lower court is not impleaded. In certiorari,
under Rule 65, the lower court is impleaded.
2) In appeal by certiorari, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is not
required, while in the special civil action of certiorari, such a motion is
generally required.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. NO, because as a general rule, certiorari is proper if there is no appeal (Sec.
1 of Rule 65.) However, if appeal is not a speedy and adequate remedy,
certiorari may be resorted to. (Echaus v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 381.)
Certiorari is sanctioned, even if appeal is available, on the basis of a patent,
capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion by a trial judge as when an
appeal will not promptly relieve petitioner from the injurious effects of the
disputed order (Vasquez vs. Robilla-Alenio, 271 SCRA 67)