Post Judgment Remedies

(1)Remediesbeforeajudgmentbecomesfinalandexecutory (1)Remediesbeforeajudgmentbecomesfinalandexecutory

(a)Motionforreconside

(a)Motionforreconsideration(prohibitedinacasration(prohibitedinacasethatfallsunderethatfallsunder summaryprocedure)(Rules37,52); summaryprocedure)(Rules37,52); (b)Motionfornewtrial(Rules37,53);and (b)Motionfornewtrial(Rules37,53);and (c)Appeal(Rules40,41,42,43,45) (c)Appeal(Rules40,41,42,43,45) (2)Remediesafterjudgmentbecomesfinalandexecutory (2)Remediesafterjudgmentbecomesfinalandexecutory (a)Petitionforrelieffromjudgment(Rule38); (a)Petitionforrelieffromjudgment(Rule38); (b)Actiontoannulajudgment(Rule47); (b)Actiontoannulajudgment(Rule47); (c)Certiorari(Rule65);and (c)Certiorari(Rule65);and (d)Collateralattackofajudgment. (d)Collateralattackofajudgment. (3) (3) aftertheperiodtoappealtherefromhaslapsed?Why?(3%) aftertheperiodtoappealtherefromhaslapsed?Why?(3%) theperiodtoappealtherefromhaslapsed.Apetitionforreliefmaybefiled theperiodtoappealtherefromhaslapsed.Apetitionforreliefmaybefiled onthegroundsoffra

onthegroundsoffraud,accident,mistakesud,accident,mistakesorexcusablenegligenorexcusablenegligencewithincewithin aperiodofsixty(60)d

aperiodofsixty(60)daysafterthepetitionerlearnaysafterthepetitionerlearnsofthejudgmentorfinalsofthejudgmentorfinal orderandnotmorethan

orderandnotmorethansix(6)monthsaftersuchsix(6)monthsaftersuchjudgmentorfinalorderjudgmentorfinalorder wasentered(R

wasentered(Rule38,Sections1and3).Anacule38,Sections1and3).Anactionforannulmentmayationforannulmentmayalsolso befiledontheground

befiledonthegroundofextrinsicfraudwithinfouofextrinsicfraudwithinfour(4)yearsfromitsr(4)yearsfromits discovery,and

discovery,andifbasedonlackofjurisdictifbasedonlackofjurisdiction,beforeitisbarredbylachesion,beforeitisbarredbylaches orestoppel(Rule47,Sections2and3).

orestoppel(Rule47,Sections2and3). (4)

(4)

complaintfordama

complaintfordamagesagainstJoe.DurgesagainstJoe.Duringthepre-trial,Jojie(sic)andheringthepre-trial,Jojie(sic)andher (sic)counselfailed

(sic)counselfailedtoappeardespitenoticetotoappeardespitenoticetobothofthem.Uponorabothofthem.Uponorall motionofJojie,Joe

motionofJojie,JoewasdeclaredasindefauwasdeclaredasindefaultandJojiewasalloweltandJojiewasallowedtodto presenthereviden

presentherevidenceexparte.Thereafter,ceexparte.Thereafter,thecourtrendereditsDecisthecourtrendereditsDecisioninionin favorofJojie.

favorofJojie. JoehiredJoseas

JoehiredJoseashiscounsel.Whatarethhiscounsel.Whataretheremediesavailabletohim?eremediesavailabletohim? Explain.(5%) Explain.(5%) Grounds: Grounds: 1.Extrinsicfraud 1.Extrinsicfraud 2.Accident 2.Accident 3.Mistakeoffact 3.Mistakeoffact 4.Excusablenegligence 4.Excusablenegligence Grounds: Grounds: 5.Extrinsicfraud 5.Extrinsicfraud 6.Accident 6.Accident 7.Mistakeoffact 7.Mistakeoffact 8.Excusable 8.Excusable negligence negligence Grounds: Grounds: 1.Extrinsicfraud 1.Extrinsicfraud 2.Lackofjurisdiction 2.Lackofjurisdiction overthesubject overthesubject matter matter Periodoffiling: Periodoffiling: 1.Withinfifteen(15) 1.Withinfifteen(15) daysfromreceiptof daysfromreceiptof noticeofjudgmentor noticeofjudgmentor finalorder(Noticeof finalorder(Noticeof  Appeal);or  Appeal);or 2.Withinthirty(30)days 2.Withinthirty(30)days fromreceiptofnoticeof fromreceiptofnoticeof  judgmentorfinalorder  judgmentorfinalorder (RecordonAppeal) (RecordonAppeal) Periodoffiling: Periodoffiling: 1.Withinsixty(60) 1.Withinsixty(60) afterpetitionerlearns afterpetitionerlearns ofthejudgmentor ofthejudgmentor order,andnotmore order,andnotmore thansix(6)months thansix(6)months afterentryof afterentryof  judgment.  judgment. Periodoffiling: Periodoffiling: 1.Extrinsicfraud 1.Extrinsicfraud –  –  withinfour(4)years withinfour(4)years fromdiscovery fromdiscovery 2.Lackofjurisdiction 2.Lackofjurisdiction  –   – beforebarredbybeforebarredby lachesorestoppel lachesorestoppel allowed.InDistilleriaLim

allowed.InDistilleriaLimtuacovs.CA,143tuacovs.CA,143SCRA92,itwassaidthaSCRA92,itwassaidthatthetthe periodforfilingamotionfornewtrialiswithintheperiodfortakingan periodforfilingamotionfornewtrialiswithintheperiodfortakingan appeal.

appeal.

(2)Theperiodforappealisw

(2)Theperiodforappealiswithin15daysafternoticeithin15daysafternoticetotheappellantoftotheappellantof thejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom.Wherearecordonappealis thejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom.Wherearecordonappealis required,theappellantsha

required,theappellantshallfileanoticeofappealanllfileanoticeofappealandarecordonappealdarecordonappeal within30daysfromno

within30daysfromnoticeofthejudgmentorfinaticeofthejudgmentorfinalorder(Sec.3,Rule41).lorder(Sec.3,Rule41).

POST JUDGMEN

POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES

T REMEDIES Rules 37-38,

Rules 37-38, 40

40 47, 52-53)

47, 52-53)

2002 Bar: 2002 Bar:MayanorderdenyingtheprobateofawillstillbeoverturnedMayanorderdenyingtheprobateofawillstillbeoverturned Answer: Answer:Yes,anorderdenyingtheprobateofawillmaybeoverturnedafterYes,anorderdenyingtheprobateofawillmaybeoverturnedafter 2006 Bar: 2006 Bar:JojiefiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofLagunaaJojiefiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofLagunaa

Motion for New Trial Motion for New Trial

Rule 37)

Rule 37) Petition for Relief fromPetition for Relief fromJudgment Judgment Rule Rule 38)38)

Action to Annul Action to Annul judgment judgment Rule 47) Rule 47)

Motion for New

Motion for New Trial or Trial or Reconsideration Reconsideration Rule 37)Rule 37) Grounds for a motion for new trial

Grounds for a motion for new trial (1)Fraud(extrinsic),acc

(1)Fraud(extrinsic),accident,mistake(offacident,mistake(offactandnotoflaw)orexcusabtandnotoflaw)orexcusablele negligencewhichord

negligencewhichordinaryprudencecouldninaryprudencecouldnothaveguardedagainstaothaveguardedagainstandbyndby reasonofwhichsuch

reasonofwhichsuchaggrievedpartyhaspaggrievedpartyhasprobablybeenimpairedinhisrobablybeenimpairedinhis rights;

rights;

(2)Newlydiscovered

(2)Newlydiscoveredevidence(BerryRule)evidence(BerryRule),whichhecouldnot,w,whichhecouldnot,withith reasonablediligence,

reasonablediligence,havediscoveredandphavediscoveredandproducedatthetrial,andwhroducedatthetrial,andwhichich ifpresentedwouldprobablyaltertheresult.

ifpresentedwouldprobablyaltertheresult. (3)Forthegroundsoffraud,a

(3)Forthegroundsoffraud,accident,mistake,occident,mistake,orexcusablenegligence,rexcusablenegligence, attachmentofaffidav

attachmentofaffidavitofmeritisrequired;otheitofmeritisrequired;otherwise,itwouldbeaprorwise,itwouldbeapro formamotion. formamotion. (1)Thedamagesawardedareexcessive; (1)Thedamagesawardedareexcessive; (2)Theevidenceisinsufficienttojustifythedecisionorfinalorder; (2)Theevidenceisinsufficienttojustifythedecisionorfinalorder; (3)Thedecisionorfinalorderiscontrarytolaw(Sec.1). (3)Thedecisionorfinalorderiscontrarytolaw(Sec.1). (1)Amotionfornewtrialshouldbefiledwithintheperiodfortakingan (1)Amotionfornewtrialshouldbefiledwithintheperiodfortakingan appeal.Hence,itmu

appeal.Hence,itmustbefiledbeforethefinalityofthestbefiledbeforethefinalityofthejudgment(Sec.1).judgment(Sec.1). Nomotionforextens

Nomotionforextensionoftimetofileamotionfoionoftimetofileamotionforreconsiderationshallberreconsiderationshallbe Grounds for a motion for reconsideration

Grounds for a motion for reconsideration

When to file When to file

 Arecordonappealshallberequiredonlyinspecialproceedingsandother casesofmultipleorseparateappeals(Sec.3,Rule40). fromreceiptofnoticeoftheorderdenyingordismissingthemotionfor reconsiderationwithinwhichtofileanoticeofappeal. (2)Whenthemotionfornewtrialisdeniedonthegroundoffraud,accident, mistakeoffactorlaw,orexcusablenegligence,theaggrievedpartycanno longeravailoftheremedyofpetitionforrelieffromjudgment(Franciscovs. Puno,108SCRA427). (3)Thedenialofamotionforreconsiderationsignifiesthatthegrounds relieduponhavebeenfound,uponduedeliberation,tobewithoutmerit,as notbeingofsufficientweighttowarrantamodificationofthejudgmentor finalorder.Itmeansnotonlythatthegroundsrelieduponarelackingin meritbutalsothatanyother,notsoraised,isdeemedwaivedandmayno longerbesetupinasubsequentmotionorapplicationtooverturnthe  judgment;andthisistrue,whatevermaybethetitlegiventosuchmotionor application,whetheritbe―secondmotionforreconsideration‖or―motion forclarification‖or―pleafordueprocess‖or―prayerforasecondlook,‖or  ―motiontodefer,orsetaside,entryofjudgment,‖(SocialJusticeSocietyv. Lim,GRNo.187836,03/10/2015). (1)Ifanewtrialbegrantedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftherules, theoriginaljudgmentshallbevacatedorsetaside,andtheactionshall standfortrialdenovo;buttherecordedevidencetakenupontheformer trialsofarasthesameismaterialandcompetenttoestablishtheissues, shallbeusedatthenewtrialwithoutretakingthesame(Sec.6).Thefiling ofthemotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationinterruptstheperiodtoappeal (Sec.2,Rule40;Sec.3,Rule41). (2)Ifthecourtgrantsthemotion(e.g.,itfindsthatexcessivedamageshave beenawardedorthatthejudgmentorfinalorderiscontrarytotheevidence orlaw),itmayamendsuchjudgmentorfinalorderaccordingly(Sec.3). Theamendedjudgmentisinthenatureofanewjudgmentwhich supersedestheoriginaljudgment.Itisnotameresupplementaldecision whichdoesnotsupplanttheoriginalbutonlyservestoaddsomethingtoit (Esquivelvs.Alegre,172SCRA315).Ifthecourtfindsthatamotionaffects theissuesofthecaseastoonlyapart,orlessthanallofthemattersin controversy,oronlyone,orlessthanallofthepartiestoit,theordermay grantareconsiderationastosuchissuesifseverablewithoutinterfering withthejudgmentorfinalorderupontherest(Sec.7). (3)Asageneralrule,newtrialbasedonnewlydiscoveredevidenceisnot allowedonappeal.However,thisruleadmitsofanexception,providedthe followingrequirementsarepresent: (a)Thenewevidencemusthavebeendiscoveredaftertrial; (b)Earnesteffortsweredonetolookfornewlydiscoveredevidencebut fruitless; (c)Ifsoallowed,itwouldprobablyaltertheresult;and (d)Itmustbematerialandnotjustcorroborativeorcumulative(Mendoza vs.Ozamis). (1)Thepartyaggrievedshouldappealthejudgment.Thisissobecausea secondmotionforreconsiderationisexpresslyprohibitedundertheInterim Rules(Sec.5). (2)Anorderdenyingamotionforreconsiderationornewtrialisnot appealable,theremedybeinganappealfromthejudgmentorfinalorder underRule41.Theremedyfromanorderdenyingamotionfornewtrialis nottoappealfromtheorderofdenial.Again,theorderisnotappealable. Theremedyistoappealfromthejudgmentorfinalorderitselfsubjectofthe motionfornewtrial(Sec.9,Rule37). (1)Ifthemotionisdenied,themovanthasafreshperiodof15daysfrom receiptofnoticeoftheorderdenyingordismissingthemotionfor reconsiderationwithinwhichtofileanoticetoappeal.Thisnewperiod becomessignificantifeitheramotionforreconsiderationoramotionfor newtrialhasbeenfiledbutwasdeniedordismissed.Thisfreshperiodrule appliesnotonlytoRule41governingappealsfromtheRTCbutalsoto Rule40governingappealsfromMTCtoRTC,Rule42onpetitionsfor reviewfromtheRTCtotheCA,Rule43onappealfromquasi-judicial agenciestotheCA,andRule45governingappealsbycertioraritotheSC.  Accordingly,thisrulewasadoptedtostandardizetheappealperiods providedintheRulestoaffordfairopportunitytoreviewthecaseand,inthe process,minimizeerrorsofjudgment.Obviously,thenew15dayperiod maybeavailedofonlyifeithermotionisfiled;otherwise,thedecision becomesfinalandexecutoryafterthelapseoftheoriginalappealperiod providedinRule41(Neypesvs.CA,GRNo.141524,09/14/2005). (2)TheNeypesrulingshallnotbeappliedwherenomotionfornewtrialor motionforreconsiderationhasbeenfiledinwhichcasethe15-dayperiod shallrunfromnoticeofthejudgment.ThisshallnotapplytoRules12,16, 62,and64.TheperiodforRules40and41areextendible,whilethoseof Rules42,43,and45arenotextendible.

Denial of the motion; effect

(1)Ifthemotionisdenied,themovanthasa―freshperiod‖offifteendays

Grant of the motion; effect

Remedy when motion is denied

(3)Thefreshperiodruledoesnotrefertotheperiodwithinwhichtoappeal fromtheorderdenyingthemotionfornewtrialbecausetheorderisnot appealableunderSec.9,Rule37.Thenon-appealabilityoftheorderof denialisalsoconfirmedbySec.1(a),Rule41,whichprovidesthatno appealmaybetakenfromanorderdenyingamotionfornewtrialora motionforreconsideration. (4)AppealfromtheMTCtotheRTC:thefifteen-dayperiodiscountedfrom thedateofthereceiptofthenoticeofdenialofmotion. (5)Thedoctrineoffinalityofjudgmentdictatesthat,attheriskofoccasional errors,judgmentsorordersmustbecomefinalatsomepointintime.In Neypes,theSupremeCourt,inordertostandardizetheappealperiods providedintheRulesandtoaffordlitigantsfairopportunitytoappealtheir cases,declaredthatanaggrievedpartyhasafreshperiodof15days countedfromreceiptoftheorderdismissingamotionforanewtrialor motionforreconsideration,withinwhichtofilethenoticeofappealinthe RTC.(HeirsofBihagv.HeirsofBathan,GRNo.181949,04/23/2014). (1)Therighttoappealisnotpartofdueprocessbutamerestatutory privilegethathastobeexercisedonlyinthemannerandinaccordance withtheprovisionsoflaw(Stolt-Nielsenvs.NLRC,GR147623,Dec.13, 2005).Thegeneralruleisthattheremedytoobtainreversalormodification ofjudgmentonthemeritsisappeal.Thisistrueeveniftheerror,oroneof theerrors,ascribedtothecourtrenderingthejudgmentisitslackof  jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter,ortheexerciseofpowerinexcess thereof,orgraveabuseofdiscretioninthefindingsoffactsoroflawsetout inthedecision(AssociationofIntegratedSecurityForceofBislig-ALUvs. CA,GR140150,Aug.22,2005).Anappealmaybetakenonlyfrom  judgmentsorfinalordersthatcompletelydisposeofthecase(Sec.1,Rule 41). (2)Aninterlocutoryorderisnotappealableuntilaftertherenditionofthe  judgmentonthemerits.Exception:DoctrineofProceduralVoid. (3)Certainrulesonappeal: (a)Notrialdenovoanymore.Theappellatecourtsmustdecidethecase onthebasisoftherecord,exceptwhentheproceedingswerenot dulyrecordedaswhentherewasabsenceofaqualifiedstenographer (Sec.22[d],BP129;Rule21[d],InterimRulesI); (b)Therecanbenonewparties; (c)Therecanbenochangeoftheory(Navalvs.CA,483SCRA102); (d)Therecanbenonewmatters(Ondapvs.Abuga,88SCRA610); (e)Therecanbeamendmentsofpleadingstoconformtotheevidence submittedbeforethetrialcourt(Dayaovs.Shell,97SCRA407); (f)Theliabilityofsolidarydefendantwhodidnotappealisnotaffected byappealofsolidarydebtor(Mun.ofOrionvs.Concha,50Phil.679); (g)Appealbyguarantordoesnotinuretotheprincipal(LuzonMetalvs. ManilaUnderwriter,29SCRA184); (h)Inejectmentcases,theRTCcannotawardtotheappellantonhis counterclaimmorethantheamountofdamagesbeyondthe  jurisdictionoftheMTC(Agustinvs.Bataclan,135SCRA342); (i)Theappellatecourtcannotdismisstheappealedcaseforfailureto prosecutebecausethecasemustbedecidedonthebasisofthe record(Rule21,InterimRules). (4)Doctrinally-entrenchedisthattherighttoappealisastatutoryrightand theonewhoseekstoavailthatrightmustcomplywiththestatuteorrules. Theperfectionofappealinthemannerandwithintheperiodsetbylawis notonlymandatorybutjurisdictionalaswell,hence,failuretoperfectthe samerendersthejudgmentfinalandexecutory.(DeLeonv.HerculesAgro IndustrialCorporation,GRNo.183239,06/02/2014). (5)Anappealthrowstheentirecaseopenforreview.Anappeal,once acceptedbythisCourt,throwstheentirecaseopentoreview,andthatthis Courthastheauthoritytoreviewmattersnotspecificallyraisedorassigned aserrorbytheparties,iftheirconsiderationisnecessaryinarrivingatajust resolutionofthecase.(Barcelonav.Lim,GRNo.189171,06/032014). (6)TheCourtdidrelaxtherulerespectingthebondrequirementtoperfect appealincaseswhere:(1)therewassubstantialcompliancewiththe Rules,(2)surroundingfactsandcircumstancesconstitutemeritorious groundstoreducethebond,(3)aliberalinterpretationoftherequirementof anappealbondwouldservethedesiredobjectiveofresolving controversiesonthemerits,or(4)theappellants,attheveryleast, exhibitedtheirwillingnessand/orgoodfaithbypostingapartialbondduring thereglementaryperiod.Clearlytherefore,theRulesonlyallowthefilingof amotiontoreducebondontwo(2)conditions:(1)thatthereismeritorious groundand(2)abondinareasonableamountisposted.Compliancewith thetwoconditionsstopstherunningoftheperiodtoperfectanappeal providedthattheyarecompliedwithwithinthe10-dayreglementaryperiod. (SaraLeePhilippines,Inc.v.Macatlang,GRNos.180147,180149-50, 180319,180685,06/04/2014). (7)Itisaxiomaticthatapartywhodoesnotappealorfileapetitionfor certiorariisnotentitledtoanyaffirmativerelief.Anappelleewhoisnotan appellantmayassignerrorsinhisbriefwherehispurposeistomaintainthe  judgmentbuthecannotseekmodificationorreversalofthejudgmentor claimaffirmativereliefunlesshehasalsoappealed.Thus,forfailureof respondenttoassailthevalidityofherdismissal,suchrulingisnolongerin

Appeals in General

issue.(ImmaculateConcepcionAcademyv.Camilon,GRNo.188035, 07/02/2014). (8)Whenanaccusedappealsfromthesentenceofthetrialcourt,he waivestheconstitutionalsafeguardagainstdoublejeopardyandthrowsthe wholecaseopentothereviewoftheappellatecourt,whichisthencalled upontorendersuchjudgmentaslawandjusticedictate,whetherfavorable orunfavorabletotheappellant.(Peoplev.Torres,GRNo.189850, 09/22/2014). (9) TrialCourt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 toWithdrawNoticeofAppeal.PlaintiffAreceivedtheOrderdenyinghis MotionforReconsiderationon03February2003andfiledhisNoticef Appealon05February2003.ThecourtdeniedduecourseofA‘sNoticeof  Appealonthegroundthattheperiodtoappealhadalreadylapsed. 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? notproper,becausetheperiodofappealofXhasnotyetexpired.From02 January2003whenXreceivedacopyoftheadversedecisionupto13 January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take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ofFebruary3,2003OrderdenyinghisMotion forReconsiderationwithinwhichtoappeal.Hefiledhisnoticeofappealon February5,2003,oronlytwo(2)dayslater. (1)Anappealmaybetakenonlyfromjudgmentsorfinalordersthat completelydisposeofthecase(Sec.1,Rule41).Aninterlocutoryorderis notappealableuntilaftertherenditionofthejudgmentonthemerits. (2)Thereisaquestionoflawwhenthedoubtordifferencearisesastowhat thelawisoncertainstateoffactsandwhichdoesnotcallforanexistence oftheprobativevalueoftheevidencepresentedbytheparties-litigants.Ina caseinvolvingaquestionoflaw,theresolutionoftheissuerestssolelyon whatthelawprovidesonthegivensetofcircumstances.Intheinstant case,petitionerappealedtheOrderofthetrialcourtwhichdismissedhis complaintforimpropervenue,lackofcauseofaction,andresjudicata. Dismissalsbasedonthesegroundsdonotinvolveareviewofthefactsof thecasebutmerelytheapplicationofthelaw,specificallyinthiscase,Rule 16oftheRevisedRulesofCivilProcedure.Considering,therefore,thatthe subjectappealraisedonlyquestionsoflaw,theCAcommittednoerrorin dismissingthesame.(Samsonv.Sps.Gabor,GRNo.182970, 07/23/2014). (1)Noappealmaybetakenfrom: (a)Anorderdenyingapetitionforrelieforanysimilarmotionseeking relieffromjudgment; (b)Aninterlocutoryorder; (c)Anorderdisallowingordismissinganappeal; (d)Anorderdenyingamotiontosetasideajudgmentbyconsent, confessionorcompromiseonthegroundoffraud,mistakeorduress,or anyothergroundvitiatingconsent; (e)Anorderofexecution; (f)Ajudgmentorfinalorderfororagainstoneormoreofseveralparties orinseparateclaims,counterclaims,cross-claims,andthird-party complaints,whilethemaincaseispending,unlessthecourtallowsan appealtherefrom;and (g)Anorderdismissinganactionwithoutprejudice(Sec.1,Rule41). (2)Aquestionthatwasneverraisedinthecourtsbelowcannotbeallowed toberaisedforthefirsttimeonappealwithoutoffendingbasicrulesoffair play,justiceanddueprocess(BankofCommercevs.Serrano,451SCRA 484).Foranappellatecourttoconsideralegalquestion,itshouldhave beenraisedinthecourtbelow(PNOCvs.CA,457SCRA32).Itwouldbe unfairtotheadversepartywhowouldhavenoopportunitytopresent evidenceincontratothenewtheory,whichitcouldhavedonehaditbeen awareofitatthetimeofthehearingbeforethetrialcourt.itistruethatthis ruleadmitsofexceptionsasincasesoflackofjurisdiction,wherethelower courtcommittedplainerror,wheretherearejurisprudentialdevelopments affectingtheissues,orwhentheissuesraisedpresentamatterofpublic policy(Baluyotvs.Poblete,GR144435,Feb.6,2007). (3)Theruleunder(2)howeverisonlythegeneralrulebecauseSec.8, Rule51precludesitsabsoluteapplicationallowingasitdoescertainerrors whichevenifnotassignedmayberuleduponbytheappellatecourt. Hence,thecourtmayconsideranerrornotraisedonappealprovidedthe samefallswithinanyofthefollowingcategories: (a)Itisanerrorthataffectsthejurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter; (b)Itisanerrorthataffectsthevalidityofthejudgmentappealedfrom; 2003 Bar:DefendantXreceivedanadverseDecisionoftheRegional Answer:No,thecourt‘sdenialofX‘sMotiontoWithdrawNoticeofAppealis

Judgments and final orders subject to appeal

(c)Itisanerrorwhichaffectstheproceedings; (d)Itisanerrorcloselyrelatedtoordependentonanassignederrorand properlyarguedinthebrief;or (e)Itisaplainandclericalerror. (4)TheSupremeCourtruledruledthatanappellatecourthasabroad discretionarypowerinwaivingthelackofassignmentoferrorsinthe followinginstances: (a)Groundsnotassignedaserrorsbutaffectingthejurisdictionofthe courtoverthesubjectmatter: (b)Mattersnotassignedaserrorsonappealbutareevidentlyplainor clericalerrorswithincontemplationoflaw; (c)Mattersnotassignedaserrorsonappealbutconsiderationofwhichis necessaryinarrivingatajustdecisionandcompleteresolutionofthe caseortoservetheinterestsofajusticeortoavoiddispensing piecemealjustice; (d)Mattersnotspecificallyassignedaserrorsonappealbutraisedinthr trialcourtandaremattersofrecordhavingsomebearingontheissue submittedwhichthepartiesfailedtoraiseorwhichthelowercourt ignored; (e)Mattersnotassignedaserrorsonappealbutcloselyrelatedtoan errorassigned;and (f)Mattersnotassignedaserrorsonappealbutuponwhichthe determinationofaquestionproperlyassigned,isdependent(General MillingCorp.v.Sps.Ramos,GRNo.193723,07/20/2011). (1)Inthoseinstanceswherethejudgmentorfinalorderisnotappealable, theaggrievedpartymayfiletheappropriatespecialcivilactionunderRule 65.Rule65referstothespecialcivilactionsofcertiorari,prohibitionand mandamus.Practically,itwouldbethespecialcivilactionofcertiorarithat wouldbeavailedofundermostcircumstances.Themostpotentremedy againstthosejudgmentsandordersfromwhichappealcannotbetakenis toallegeandprovethatthesamewereissuedwithoutjurisdiction,with graveabuseofdiscretionorinexcessofjurisdiction,allamountingtolack ofjurisdiction. (a)Ordinaryappeal.TheappealtotheCAincasesdecidedbytheRTCin theexerciseofitsoriginaljurisdictionshallbetakenbyfilinganoticeof appealwiththecourtwhichrenderedthejudgmentorfinalorderappealed fromandservingacopythereofupontheadverseparty.Norecordon appealshallberequiredexceptinspecialproceedingsandothercasesof multipleorseparateappealswherethelawortheRulessorequire.Insuch cases,therecordonappealshallbefiledandservedinlikemanner. (b)Petitionforreview.TheappealtotheCAincasesdecidedbytheRTCin theexerciseofitsappellatejurisdictionshallbebypetitionforreviewin accordancewithRule42. (c)Petitionforreviewoncertiorari.Inallcaseswhereonlyquestionsoflaw areraisedorinvolved,theappealshallbetotheSCbypetitionforreview oncertiorariinaccordancewithRule45. (1)Therecordonappealmustshowthefollowingmaterialdata: (a)Dateofthereceiptofthecopyoffinalorderorjudgment; (b)Dateoffilingofthemotionforreconsiderationornewtrial;and (c)Dateofthereceiptofthedenialofthemotionforreconsiderationor newtrail. (2)AnappealmaybedismissedbytheCourtofAppeals,onitsownmotion oronthatoftheappellee,onthefollowinggrounds: (a)Failureoftherecordonappealtoshowonitsfacethattheappealwas takenwithintheperiodfixedbytheRules; (b)Failuretofilethenoticeofappealortherecordonappealwithinthe periodprescribedbytheRules; (c)Failureoftheappellanttopaythedocketandotherlawfulfeesas providedinSection5ofRule40andSection4ofRule41; (d)Unauthorizedalterations,omissionsoradditionsintheapprovedrecord onappealasprovidedinSection4ofRule44; (e)Failureoftheappellanttoserveandfiletherequirednumberofcopies ofhisbrieformemorandumwithinthetimeprovidedbytheRules; (f)Absenceofspecificassignmentoferrorsintheappellant‘sbrief,or pagereferencestotherecordasrequiredinSection13[a],[c],[d],and [f]ofRule44; (g)Failureoftheappellanttotakethenecessarystepsforthecorrectionor completionoftherecordwithinthetimelimitedbythecourtinitsorder; (h)Failureoftheappellanttoappearatthepreliminaryconferenceunder Rule48ortocomplywithorders,circulars,ordirectivesofthecourt withoutjustifiablecause;and (i)Thefactthattheorderorjudgmentappealedfromisnotappealable. (1)Whetherornottheappellanthasfiledamotionfornewtrialinthecourt below,hemayincludeinhisassignmentoferrorsanyquestionoflawor factthathasbeenraisedinthecourtbelowandwhichiswithintheissues framedbytheparties(Sec.15,Rule44).

Remedy against judgments and orders which are not appealable

Modes of appeal Sec. 2, Rule 41)

Material Data Rule Sec. 1 [a], Rule 50)

Issues to be raised on appeal

OrdinaryAppeal(Rules40,41) a)NoticeofAppeal (Rule40) Within15daysfrom receiptofjudgment orfinalorder,with noextension Within15daysfromreceipt oforderdenyingmotionfor reconsiderationornewtrial b)RecordonAppeal (Rule41) Within30daysfrom receiptofjudgment orfinalorder The30-daytofilethenotice ofappealandrecordon appealshouldbereckoned fromthereceiptoftheorder denyingthemotionfornew trialormotionfor reconsideration(Zaycovs. Himlo,GR170243,April 16,2008) PetitionforReview (Rule42) Within15daysfrom receiptofjudgment Within15daysfromreceipt oftheorderdenyingmotion forreconsiderationornew trial PetitionforReview (Rule43) Within15daysfrom receiptofjudgment orfinalorderorof lastpublication Within15daysfromreceipt oftheorderdenyingmotion forreconsiderationornew trial PetitionforReview onCertiorari(Rule 45) Within15daysfrom receiptofjudgment orfinalorder Within15daysfromreceipt oftheorderdenyingmotion forreconsiderationornew trial (1)PeriodofOrdinaryAppealunderRule40.Anappealmaybetaken(from MTCtoRTC)within15daysafternoticetotheappellantofthejudgmentor finalorderappealedfrom.Wherearecordonappealisrequired,the appellantshallfileanoticeofappealandarecordonappealwithin30days afternoticeofthejudgmentorfinalorder.Theperiodofappealshallbe interruptedbyatimelymotionfornewtrialorreconsideration.Nomotionfor extensionoftimetofileamotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationshallbe allowed(Sec.2). (2)PeriodofOrdinaryAppealunderRule41).Theappealshallbetaken within15daysfromnoticeofthejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom. Wherearecordonappealisrequired,theappellantsshallfileanoticeof appealandarecordonappealwithin30daysfromnoticeofthejudgment orfinalorder.However,onappealinhabeascorpuscasesshallbetaken within48hoursfromnoticeofthejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom (AMNo.01-1-03-SC,June19,2001).Theperiodofappealshallbe interruptedbyatimelymotionfornewtrialorreconsideration.Nomotionfor extensionoftimetofileamotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationshallbe allowed(Sec.3).IftherecordonappealisnottransmittedtotheCAwithin 30daysaftertheperfectionofappeal,eitherpartymayfileamotionwith thetrialcourt,withnoticetotheother,forthetransmittalofsuchrecordor recordonappeal(Sec.3,Rule44). (3)PeriodofPetitionforReviewunderRule42.Thepetitionshallbefiled andservedwithin15daysfromnoticeofthedecisionsoughttobereviewed orofthedenialofpetitioner‘smotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationfiledin duetimeafterjudgment.Thecourtmaygrantanadditionalperiodof15 daysonly,providedtheextensionissought(a)uponpropermotion,and(b) thereispaymentofthefullamountofthedocketandotherlawfulfeesand thedepositforcostsbeforetheexpirationofthereglementaryperiod.No furtherextensionshallbegrantedexceptforthemostcompellingreason andinnocasetoexceed15days(Sec.1). (4)PeriodofAppealbyPetitionforReviewunderRule43.Theappealshall betakenwithin15daysfromnoticeoftheaward,judgment,finalorderor resolution,orfromthedateofitslastpublication,ifpublicationisrequired bylawforitseffectivity,orofthedenialofpetitioner‘smotionfornewtrialor reconsiderationdulyfiledinaccordancewiththegoverninglawofthecourt oragencyaquo.Onlyone(1)motionforreconsiderationshallbeallowed. Uponpropermotionandthepaymentofthefullamountofthedocketfee beforetheexpirationofthereglementaryperiod,theCAmaygrantan additionalperiodof15daysonlywithinwhichtofilethepetitionforreview. Nofurtherextensionshallbegrantedexceptforthemostcompellingreason andinnocasetoexceed15days(Sec.4). (5)PeriodofAppealbyPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45.The appealwhichshallbeintheformofaverifiedpetitionshallbefiledwithin15 daysfromnoticeofthejudgment,finalorderorresolutionappealedfrom,or within15daysfromnoticeofthedenialofthepetitioner‘smotionfornew trailormotionforreconsiderationfiledinduetime.TheSupremeCourt may,forjustifiablereasons,grantanextensionof30daysonlywithinwhich tofilethepetitionprovided,(a)thereisamotionforextensionoftimeduly filedandserved,(b)thereisfullpaymentofthedocketandotherlawfulfees andthedepositforcosts,and(c)themotionisfiledandservedandthe paymentismadebeforetheexpirationofthereglementaryperiod(Sec.2). (6)InappealscognizedbytheOfficeofthePresident,thetimeduringwhich amotionforreconsiderationhasbeenpendingwiththeMinistry/agency concernedshallbedeductedfromtheperiodforappeal.(Sps.Rosetev. Briones,GRNo.176121,09/22/2014).

MODE OF APPEAL PERIOD OF_APPEAL Period of appeal if partyfiles MFR or New Trial Neypes Rule)

(1)ForOrdinaryAppealsfromMTCtotheRTC(Rule40)andfromtheRTC totheCA(Rule41). (a)Aparty‘sappealbynoticeofappealisdeemedperfectedastohim uponthefilingofthenoticeofappealinduetime; (b)Aparty‘sappealbyrecordonappealisdeemedperfectedastohim withrespecttothesubjectmatterthereofupontheapprovaloftherecord onappealfiledinduetime; (c)Inappealsbynoticeofappeal,thecourtlosesjurisdictiononlyoverthe subjectmatterthereofupontheapprovaloftherecordsonappealfiledin duetimeandtheexpirationofthetimetoappealoftheotherparties; (d)Ineithercase,priortothetransmittaloftheoriginalrecordortherecord onappeal,thecourtmayissueordersfortheprotectionandpreservation oftherightsofthepartieswhichdonotinvolveanymatterlitigatedbythe appeal,approvecompromises,permitappealsofindigentlitigants,order executionpendingappealinaccordancewithSec.2,Rule39,andallow withdrawaloftheappeal(Sec.9,Rule41). (2)PerfectionofAppealbyPetitionforReviewunderRule42.(Sec.8) (a)Uponthetimelyfilingofapetitionforreviewandthepaymentofthe correspondingdocketandotherlawfulfees,theappealisdeemed perfectedastothepetitioner.TheRTC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. However,beforetheCAgiveduecoursetothepetition,theRTCmayissue ordersfortheprotectionandpreservationoftherightsofthepartieswhich donotinvolveanymatterlitigatedbytheappeal,approvecompromises, permitappealsofindigentlitigants,orderexecutionpendingappealin accordancewithSec.2,Rule39,andallowwithdrawaloftheappeal. (b)ExceptincivilcasesdecidedunderRulesonSummaryProcedure,the appealshallstaythejudgmentorfinalorderunlesstheCA,thelaw,orthe Rulesprovideotherwise. (c)Aparty‘sappealbynoticeofappealisdeemedperfectedastohimupon thefilingthereofinduetime,andaparty‘sappealbyrecordonappealis deemedperfectedastohimupontheapprovalthereof.Inthefirstcase,the courtlosesjurisdictionoverthewholecaseupontheperfectionofthe appealstakenbythepartieswhohaveappealedandtheexpirationofthe timetoappealoftheotherparties.Inthesecondcase,thecourtloses  jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterthereofupontheapprovalofallthe recordsonappealfiledbythepartieswhohaveappealedandtheexpiration ofthetimetoappealoftheotherparties;andretainsjurisdictionoverthe remainingsubjectmatternotcoveredbytheappeal. (3)Theruleisthatfailuretofileorperfectanappealwithinthereglementary periodwillmakethejudgmentfinalandexecutorybyoperationoflaw.Filing ofanappealbeyondthereglementaryperiodmay,undermeritorious cases,beexcusedifthebarringoftheappealwouldbeinequitableand unjustinlightofcertaincircumstancestherein.(Bañezv.SocialSecurity System,GRNo.189574,07/18/2014). (4)Acounsel‘sfailuretoperfectanappealwithinthereglementaryperiodis simplenegligence.Itisnotoneasgross,palpable,andrecklessasto depriveapartyofitsdayincourt.Hence,wewillnotoverridethefinality andimmutabilityofajudgmentbasedonlyonthesimplenegligenceofa party‘scounsel.IK&GMiningCorporationv.AcojeMiningCompany,GR No.188364,02/11/2015). (1)AnappealfromajudgmentorfinalorderofanMTCmaybetakentothe RTCexercisingjurisdictionovertheareatowhichtheformerpertains.The titleofthecaseshallremainasitwasinthecourtoforigin,buttheparty appealingthecaseshallbefurtherreferredtoastheappellantandthe adversepartyastheappellee(Sec.1,Rule40). (2)Theappealistakenbyfilinganoticeofappealwiththecourtthat renderedthejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom.Thenoticeofappeal shallindicatethepartiestotheappeal,thejudgmentorfinalorderorpart thereofappealedfrom,andstatethematerialdatesshowingthetimeliness oftheappeal.Arecordonappealshallberequiredonlyinspecial proceedingsandinothercasesofmultipleorseparateappeals(Sec.3). (3)Procedure(Sec.7): (a)Uponreceiptofthecompleterecordortherecordonappeal,theclerk ofcourtoftheRTCshallnotifythepartiesofsuchfact. (b)Within15daysfromsuchnotice,theappellantshallsubmita memorandumwhichshallbrieflydiscusstheerrorsimputedtothelower court,acopyofwhichshallbefurnishedbyhimtotheadverseparty. Within15daysfromreceiptofappellant‘smemorandum,theappellee mayfilehismemorandum.Failureofappellanttofileamemorandum shallbeagroundfordismissaloftheappeal. (c)Oncethefilingofthememorandumoftheappellee,ortheexpirationof theperiodtodoso,thecaseshallbeconsideredsubmittedfordecision. TheRTCshalldecidethecaseonthebasisoftherecordofthe proceedingshadinthecourtoforiginandsuchmemorandaasarefiled. (1)JudgmentorordersoftheRTCmaybeappealedtotheSupremeCourt throughanyofthefollowingmodes: Rule41(OrdinaryAppeal)appliestoappealsfromthejudgmentorfinal orderoftheRTCintheexerciseofitsoriginaljurisdiction. Rule42(PetitionforReview)appliestoanappealfromthejudgmentorfinal orderoftheRTCtotheCAincasesdecidedbytheRTCintheexerciseof itsappellatejurisdiction.

Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC

Rule45,PetitionforReviewonCertioraritotheSupremeCourtonpurely questionsoflaw. (2) offact.(5%) thelawisonacertainsetoffacts,whileaquestionoffactiswhenthedoubt ordifferencesariseastothetruthorfalsehoodofallegedfacts(Ramosvs. Pepsi-ColaBottlingCo.,19SCRA289[1967]). (3)Section21,Rule70providesthatthejudgmentoftheRTCinejectment casesappealedtoitshallbeimmediatelyexecutoryandcanbeenforced despitetheperfectionofanappealtoahighercourt.Toavoidsuch immediateexecution,thedefendantmayappealsaidjudgmenttotheCA andthereinapplyforawritofpreliminaryinjunction.Inthiscase,the decisionsoftheMTCC,oftheRTC,andoftheCA,unanimouslyrecognized therightoftheATOtopossessionofthepropertyandthecorresponding obligationofMiaquetoimmediatelyvacatethesubjectpremises.This meansthattheMTCC,theRTC,andtheCourtofAppealsallruledthat Miaquedoesnothaveanyrighttocontinueinpossessionofthesaid premises.ItisthereforepuzzlinghowtheCourtofAppealsjustifiedits issuanceofthewritofpreliminaryinjunctionwiththesweepingstatement thatMiaque"appearstohaveaclearlegalrighttoholdontothepremises leasedbyhimfromATOatleastuntilsuchtimewhenheshallhavebeen dulyejectedtherefrombyawritofexecutionofjudgmentcausedtobe issuedbytheMTCC.(AirTransportationOfficev.CourtofAppeals,GRNo. 173616,06/25/2014). (1)AppealbycertiorariunderRule45shallbetakentotheSCwherethe petitionsshallraiseonlyquestionsoflawdistinctlysetforth.Thegeneral ruleisthattheSCshallnotentertainquestionsoffact,exceptinthe followingcases: (a)TheconclusionoftheCAisgroundedentirelyonspeculations, surmisesandconjectures; (b)Theinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken,absurdorimpossible; (c)Thereisgraveabuseofdiscretion; (d)Thejudgmentisbasedonmisapprehensionoffacts; (e)Thefindingsoffactsareconflicting; (f)TheCAinmakingitsfindingswentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseand thesameiscontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee; (g)Thefindingsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt; (h)Thefactssetforthinthepetitionaswellasinthepetitioner‘smainand replybriefsarenotdisputedbytherespondents; (i)ThefindingsoffactoftheCAarepremisedonthesupposedabsenceof evidenceandcontradictedbytheevidenceonrecord;or (j)ThosefiledunderWritsofamparo,habeasdata,orkalikasan. (2) SupremeCourtunderRule65insteadoffilingpetitionforreviewon certiorariunderRule45forthenullificationofadecisionoftheCourtof  Appealsintheexerciseeitherofitsoriginalorappellatejurisdiction? Explain. petitionforreviewoncertiorariintheSupremeCourtunderRule45instead ofapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65,exceptincertainexceptional circumstancessuchaswhereappealisinadequate.Bysettled  jurisprudence,certiorariisnotasubstituteforlostappeal. (3) TrialCourtortheCourtofAppealstotheSupremeCourt.(2.5%) allowsappealfromjudgment,finalorderofresolutionoftheCourtof  Appeals,Sandiganbayan,theRTCorothercourtstotheSupremeCourtvia verifiedpetitionforreviewwheneverauthorizedbylawraisingonly questionsoflawdistinctlysetforth. (1)UnderSec.11ofRA9282,nocivilproceedinginvolvingmattersarising undertheNIRC,theTCCortheLocalGovernmentCodeshallbe maintained,exceptashereinprovided,untilandunlessanappealhasbeen previouslyfiledwiththeCTAenbancanddisposedofinaccordancewith theprovisionsoftheAct.Apartyadverselyaffectedbyaresolutionofa DivisionofCTAonamotionforreconsiderationornewtrial,mayfilea petitionforreviewwiththeCTAenbanc. (2)Sec.11ofRA9282furtherprovidesthatapartyadverselyaffectedbya decisionorrulingoftheCTAenbancmayfilewiththeSCaverifiedpetition forreviewoncertioraripursuanttoRule45. (3)AnappealdirectlyfiledtotheSupremeCourtfromtheCourtofTax  Appealsdivisionmustbedismissedforfailuretocomplywiththeprocedure onappeal.Itmustbeemphasizedthatanappealisneitheranaturalnora constitutionalright,butismerelystatutory.Theimplicationofitsstatutory characteristhatthepartywhointendstoappealmustalwayscomplywith theproceduresandrulesgoverningappeals;orelse,therightofappeal maybelostorsquandered.Neitheristherighttoappealacomponentof dueprocess.Itisamerestatutoryprivilegeandmaybeexercisedonlyin themannerprescribedby,andinaccordancewith,theprovisionsoflaw. (DutyFreePhilippinesv.BureauofInternalRevenue,GRNo.197228, 10/08/2014). 2004 Bar:Distinguishclearlybutbriefly:Questionsoflawandquestions Answer: Aquestionoflawiswhenthedoubtofdifferencearisesastowhat

Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CA

2005 Bar:Maytheaggrievedpartyfileapetitionforcertioraritothe

Answer:TheremedytonullifyadecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisa

2006 Bar:Explaincertiorari:AsamodeofappealfromtheRegional Answer:CertiorariasamodeofappealisgovernedbyRule45which

Appeal from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals

(1)Ajudgment,resolutionorfinalorderoftheCOMELECmaybebrought bytheaggrievedpartytotheSConCertiorariunderRule65byfilingthe petitionwithin30daysfromnotice(Sec.2,Rule64). (1)Ajudgment,finalorderorresolutionoftheCivilServiceCommission maybetakentotheCAunderRule43.Notethedifferencebetweenthe modeofappealfromajudgmentoftheCSCandthemodeofappealfrom thejudgmentsofotherconstitutionalcommissions. (1)Ajudgment,resolutionorfinalorderoftheCommissiononAuditmaybe broughtbytheaggrievedpartytotheSConcertiorariunderRule65by filingthepetitionwithin30daysfromnotice(Sec.3,Rule64). (1)Inadministrativedisciplinarycases,therulingsoftheOfficeofthe OmbudsmanareappealabletotheCourtofAppeals.Sec.27ofRA6770 (OmbudsmanActof1987)insofarasitallowedadirectappealtotheSC wasdeclaredunconstitutionalinFabianvs.Desiertobecausethestatute, beingonewhichincreasedtheappellatejurisdictionoftheSCwasenacted withouttheadviceandconcurrenceoftheCourt.Instead,appealsfrom decisionsoftheOmbudsmaninadministrativedisciplinaryactionsshould bebroughttotheCAunderRule43(Gonzalesvs.Rosas,423SCRA288). (a)TheCAhasjurisdictionoverorders,directivesanddecisionsofthe OfficeoftheOmbudsmaninadministrativecasesonly.Itcannot,therefore, reviewtheorders,directivesordecisionsoftheOOincriminalornon-administrativecases(Golangcovs.Fung,GR147640-762,Oct.12,2006). (b)AlthoughasaconsequenceofFabian,appealsfromtheOmbudsmanin administrativecasesarenowcognizablebytheCA,neverthelessincases inwhichitisallegedthattheOmbudsmanhasactedwithgraveabuseof discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionamountingtolackor excessofjurisdiction,aspecialcivilactionofcertiorariunderRule65may befiledwiththeSCtosetasidetheOmbudsman‘sorderorresolution (Navavs.NBI,455SCRA377). (2)Incriminalcases,therulingoftheOmbudsmanshallbeelevatedtothe SCbywayofRule65.TheSC‘spowertoreviewoverresolutionsand ordersoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanisrestrictedontodetermining whethergraveabuseofdiscretionhasbeencommittedbyit.TheCourtis notauthorizedtocorrecteveryerrorormistakeoftheOfficeofthe Ombudsmanotherthangraveabuseofdiscretion(Villanuevavs.Ople,GR 165125,Nov.18,2005).Theremedyisnotapetitionforreviewoncertiorari underRule45.

 Administrativecases Rule43,totheCA 15days Criminal cases Rule 65, to the SC 30 days

(3)TheOmbudsman‘sdecisionimposingthepenaltyofremovalshallbe executedasamatterofcourseandshallnotbestoppedbyanappeal thereto.Anappealshallnotstopthedecisionfrombeingexecutory.Incase thepenaltyissuspensionorremovalandtherespondentwinssuchappeal, heshallbeconsideredashavingbeenunderpreventivesuspensionand shallbepaidthesalaryandsuchotheremolumentsthathedidnotreceive byreasonofthesuspensionorremoval.AdecisionoftheOfficeofthe Ombudsmaninadministrativecasesshallbeexecutedasamatterof course.(OfficeoftheOmbudsmanv.Valencerina,GRNo.178348, 07/14/2014). (4)AppealsfromdecisionsinadministrativedisciplinarycasesoftheOffice oftheOmbudsmanshouldbetakentotheCAbywayofpetitionforreview underRule43ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended.Rule43 whichprescribesthemannerofappealfromquasi-judicialagencies,such astheOmbudsman,wasformulatedpreciselytoprovideforauniformrule ofappellateprocedureforquasi-judicialagencies.Thus,certiorariunder Rule65willnotlie,asappealunderRule43isanadequateremedyinthe ordinarycourseoflaw.(Ombudsmanv.DelosReyes,GRNo.208976, 10/13/2014). (5)TheCourthereinruledthatdecisionsoftheOmbudsmanareexecutory pendingappeal.Moreover,sincethereisnovestedrightinapublicoffice, theretroactiveapplicationoftheAOdoesnotprejudicetherightsofthe accused.(Villaseñorv.Ombudsman,GRNo.202303,06/04/2014). (6)TheOmbudsmanhasdefinedprosecutorialpowersandpossesses adjudicativecompetenceoveradministrativedisciplinarycasesfiledagainst publicofficers.ThenatureofthecasebeforetheOfficeoftheOmbudsman determinestheproperremedyavailabletotheaggrievedpartyandwith whichcourtitshouldbefiled.Inadministrativedisciplinarycases,anappeal fromtheOmbudsman‘sdecisionshouldbetakentotheCourtofAppeals (CA)underRule43,unlessthedecisionisnotappealableowingtothe penaltyimposed(Gupilan-Aguilarv.Ombudsman,GRNo.197307, 02/26/2014). (1)TheremedyofapartyaggrievedbythedecisionoftheNationalLabor RelationsCommissionistopromptlymoveforthereconsiderationofthe decisionandifdeniedtotimelyfileaspecialcivilactionofcertiorariunder Rule65within60daysfromnoticeofthedecision.Inobservanceofthe doctrineofhierarchyofcourts,thepetitionforcertiorarishouldbefiledwith Review of final orders of the Civil Service Commission

Review of final orders of the Commission on Audit

Review of final orders of the Ombudsman

Review of final orders of the National Labor Relations Commission NLRC)