PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

RULE 44 ( ORDINARY APPEALED CASES)

Crispino vs. Tansay Case G.R. No. 184466

2. APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SC - RULE 45
1. Application of Rule 45 vs 65 ROC
1.1 If the order is final, the appropriate remedy is to file a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This remedy is
used to appeal a final decision. If the order is interlocutory, the remedy is
to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Ola vs. People, G.R. No.
195547……………………………………………………..……176
1.2 The CTA has jurisdiction over local tax cases, including RPT disputes,
and its decisions can be reviewed by the CTA En Banc before being
elevated to the Supreme Court. Failure to follow the proper appellate
procedure renders the tax assessment final, executory, and demandable,
precluding further challenges to its legality or correctness.
Herarc Realty Corp. vs. Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, G.R.
No. 210736……….
1.4 The Supreme Court is not equipped to handle a petition that involved
factual issues that required the reception of evidence, as it is not a trier of
fact.
Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC, G.R. No.
217158……………………………………………..
1.5 Under Rule 41, appeals involving only legal questions are not within the
CA's jurisdiction, and the dismissal was proper under Section 2, Rule 50.
However, despite the procedural error, the Supreme Court chose to
address the substantive issue to ensure justice and avoid undue delay.
Park Developers, Inc. vs. Daclan, G.R. No.
211301………………………….………….
1.6 An Order which denied the application for preliminary injunction and
suspended proceedings until administrative remedies were exhausted,
initially seemed interlocutory. However, if the suspension created an
indefinite halt and implied that the trial court might not act further if
administrative remedies were not pursued, the order effectively dismissed
the petition.
Garin vs. City of Muntinlupa, G.R. No.
216492……………………………………………….
1.7 The proper remedy for challenging CA decisions is indeed a Rule 45
petition, even if it involves factual issues.
Ciriaco vs. Marquez, G.R. No. 171746-
48………………………………………………….
 1.8 Appeals from the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction must be made through a notice of appeal filed with the
Sandiganbayan itself, while appeals in cases decided in its appellate
jurisdiction are made via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.
Tidalgo vs. People, G.R. No.
262987…………………………………………………………..
2. Questions that may be Raised in Rule 45
2.1 Appeals from CIAC awards should be filed directly with the Supreme
Court under Rule 45 for questions of law. For factual issues, appeals may
be filed with the CA under Rule 65, but only on grounds that challenge the
integrity of the arbitral tribunal or allege violations of the Constitution or
positive law.
Global Medical Center of Laguna, Inc. vs. Ross Systems
International, Inc………
2.2 A question of law involves interpreting and applying legal principles,
whereas a question of fact pertains to disputes over the truth of factual
assertions or the evaluation of evidence. it is not the SC's role to reassess
factual evidence but to ensure that lower courts applied the law correctly.
Heirs of Lupena vs. Medina Case G.R. No.
231639………………………………………
2.3 The principle that this SC is not a trier of facts applies with greater
force in labor cases. Grave abuse must have attended the evaluation of the
facts and evidence presented by the parties.
Maricalum Mining Corp. vs. Florentino, G.R. No.
221813……………………………
2.4 Sec. 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court mandates a 15-day period for filing
a motion for reconsideration. However, The Court’s discretion allows for
relaxation of the immutability of 2.5 final judgments to serve substantial
justice, leading to the admission of the Motion for Reconsideration despite
the Entry of Judgment.
Baclig vs. Rural Bank of Cabugao, Inc., G.R. No.
230200………………………………
2.6 A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to
resolving questions of law and cannot address factual issues or
jurisdictional errors. As clarified in jurisprudence, the Court's role in a Rule
45 petition is to assess the legal correctness of the Court of Appeals'
decision, not to review the merits of the case as considered by the National
Labor Relations Commission
Morales vs. Central Azucarera de La Carlota, Inc., G.R. No.
223611…………………
In labor disputes, the Court of Appeals is empowered to evaluate the
relevance and importance of the evidence claimed to have been
capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the National Labor
Relations Commission in relation to all the other evidence on record. To
make this determination, the Court of Appeals must review the factual
 findings and evidence submitted by the parties to determine if the National
Labor Relations Commission's ruling had substantial basis. In this case, the
proper remedy for IPMR, et al., was to file a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45, not a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
I-People Manpower Resources, Inc. vs. Ca, G.R. No.
246410………………………
3. Exceptions to the Rule where Questions of Facts may be raised
3.1 Factual findings by lower courts, supported by substantial evidence, are
generally final and not subject to review by the Supreme Court. Exceptions
to this rule exist, such as when factual findings are based on speculation or
grave abuse of discretion.
Ignacio vs. Ragasa, G.R. No. 227896………………………………
4. Rule 45 in relation to Labor Cases
4.1 Rule 45 only permits questions of law, and the Supreme Court is not
tasked with reviewing or reassessing evidence. Factual findings by lower
courts, when supported by substantial evidence, are final and binding.
While there are exceptions to this rule, such as: (1) When the conclusion is
a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2)
When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3)
Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based
on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The
finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence
of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.
Canlas vs. Bongolan , G.R. No.
199625…………………………………………………….
5. Applicability to Civil and Criminal Cases
Appeal based solely on a legal question should have been raised directly
before the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Under Rule 41, appeals involving only legal
questions are not within the CA's jurisdiction, and the dismissal was proper
under Section 2, Rule 50.
Park Developers, Inc. vs. Daclan , G.R. No.
211301……………………………………
Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, expanded the scope of judicial
review by including the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
among the quasi-judicial agencies whose decisions can be appealed to the
Court of Appeals. This marked a departure from the original provision of
Executive Order No. 1008, which limited appeals from CIAC awards directly
to the Supreme Court. The Circular allowed appeals on questions of fact,
law, or both, which was reinforced by Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
 Procedure. This change enabled the CA to review factual determinations
made by the CIAC, which was intended to be a specialized tribunal.
Global Medical Center of Laguna, Inc. vs. Ross Systems
International, Inc., G.R. No.
230112…………………………………………………………..

6. Extension of Time to File

Normally, strict adherence to the rules is required for appeals, but the
Court may relax these rules in exceptional cases. In this case, petitioners
filed their petition for review late by two days, as they miscalculated the
30- day extension from the next working day instead of the original due
date, based on procedural rules. Thus, the Court allowed leniency due to
the potential loss of the petitioners' family home, a situation that demands
substantial justice.
Valenzuela vs. Spouses Pabilani, G.R. No.
241330……………………………………

RULE 46 (ORIGINAL CASES)

Francisco vs. Loyola Plans Consolidated, Inc. Case G.R. No. 194134

a. Jurisdiction over the person of the respondent

Province of Leyte vs. Energy Development Corp. Case G.R. No. 203124

Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. Vs. Asistio Case G.R. No. 243604

RULE 47 (ANNULMENT OF JUDGEMENT)

Spouses Flores vs. Spouses Estrellado Case G.R. No. 251669

Chico vs. Ciudadano, G.R No. 249815

RULE 50 (DISMISSAL OF APPEAL)

a. Grounds of Dismissal of Appeal before the CA

Alfonso vs. Spouses Andres Case G.R. No. 166236

Valderama vs. Arguelles Case G.R. No. 223660

Nolasco vs. Purence Realty Corp. Case G.R. No. 252715

Chevron Philippines, Inc. Vs. Looyuko Case G.R. No. 236525

Title Heirs of Timbao vs. Enojado Case G.R. No. 200539

RULE 51 (JUDGEMENT)
Multi-Realty Development Corp. Vs. Makati Tuscany Condominium Corp. Case
G.R. No. 146726

Hiponia-Mayuga vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. Case G.R. No. 211499

a. Form of Decision of Court of Appeals

Ola vs. People Case G.R. No. 195547

b. Questio that may be decided by Court of Appeals; Exception.

Spouses Campos vs. Republic Case G.R. No. 184371

Diaz-Enriquez vs. Director of Lands Case G.R. No. 168065