G.R. No.

179457 June 22, 2015

WILFREDO DE VERA, EUFEMIO DE VERA, ROMEO MAPANAO, JR., ROBERTO VALDEZ,

HIROHITO ALBERTO, APARICIO RAMIREZ, SR., ARMANDO DE VERA, MARIO DE VERA,
RAMIL DE VERA, EVER ALMOGELA ALDA, JUANITO RIBERAL, represented by PACITA
PASENA CONDE, ANACLETO PASCUA, ISIDRO RAMIREZ, represented by MARIANO
BAINA, SPOUSES TRUDENCIO RAMIREZ and ESTARLITA HONRADA, ARNEL DE VERA,
ISABELO MIRETTE, and ROLANDO DE VERA, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES EUGENIO SANTIAGO, SR., and ESPERANZA H. SANTIAGO, SPOUSES RAMON
CAMPOS and WARLITA SANTIAGO, SPOUSES ELIZABETH SANTIAGO and ALARIO
MARQUEZ, SPOUSES EFRAEM SANTIAGO and GLORIA SANTIAGO, SPOUSES EUGENIO
SANTIAGO, JR. and ALMA CAASI, JUPITER SANTIAGO, and JON-JON
CAMOS, Respondents.

Sec. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction.

If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the
merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. Incase of
affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional
Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case was
originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.

If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof,
but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the
admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice.15

In Serrano v. Spouses Gutierrez,16 the Court explained that the first paragraph of Section 8, Rule
40 contemplates an appeal from an order of dismissal issued without trial of the case on the
merits, while the second paragraph deals with an appeal from an order of dismissal but the case
was tried on the merits. Both paragraphs, however, involve the same ground for dismissal, i.e.,
lack of jurisdiction. Verily, the second paragraph refutes respondents' contention that Section 8,
Rule 40 refers solely to cases where the MTC dismissed a case filed therein without a trial on the
merits and an appeal to the RTC was taken from the order of dismissal. Therefore, the RTC
correctly proceeded to decide the case on the merits despite the MTC's lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter.

In contrast, the CA erroneously reversed and set aside the RTC Decision for lack of
jurisdiction. Indeed, the RTC has appellate jurisdiction over the case and its decision should be
1âw phi 1

deemed promulgated in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The RTC’s appellate jurisdiction, as
contrasted to its original jurisdiction, is provided in Section 22 of B.P. Blg.129, as amended, thus:

SECTION 22. Appellate jurisdiction.–Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction
over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of
the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin such memoranda and/or briefs as
may be submitted by the parties or

The above-quoted provision vests upon the RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all
cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Clearly then, the amount involved is immaterial
for purposes of the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction; all cases decided by the MTC are generally
appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved.17 Hence, the CA grossly erred in
nullifying the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction, and in declaring as moot and academic the
factual issues raised in the respondents' petition for review when it should have proceeded to
review on appeal the factual findings of the RTC. This is because the RTC not only has exclusive
original jurisdiction over petitioners' action for reconveyance of ownership and possession with
damages, but also appellate jurisdiction over the MTC Decision itself.

On a final note, it bears emphasis that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this
Court. This restriction of the review to questions of law has been institutionalized in Section 1,
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the second sentence of which provides that the petition shall raise
only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. Indeed, in the exercise of its power of
review, the Court is not a trier of facts and, subject to certain exceptions, it does not normally
undertake the reexamination of the evidence presented by the parties during trial.18 In certain
exceptional cases, however, the Court may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues, viz.: (a)
When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;

(d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;

(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;

(g) When the CA’s findings are contrary to those by the trial court;

(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they
are based;

(i) When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply
briefs, are not disputed by the respondent;

(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; or

(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties,
which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.19

G.R. No. 210218

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner

vs.
HEIRS OF ANTONINA RABIE, represented by ABRAHAM R. DELA CRUZ, Respondents

Further, prior to transmittal of the records of the case, the trial court does not lose jurisdiction
over the case and in fact, may issue an order for execution pending appeal. Section 9, Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. 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.
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.

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.

In appeals by record on 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.

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 Section 2
of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal. (Emphasis supplied)

Rule 45, Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal
by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file
with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only
questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (1a, 2a

Xxx

G.R. No. 192799 October 24, 2012

ROLEX RODRIGUEZ y OLAYRES, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALLIED DOMECQ SPIRITS AND WINES, represented
by ALLIED DOMECQ PHILS., INC., Respondents.

Neypes elucidates that the "fresh period rule" applies to appeals under Rule 40 (appeals from the
Municipal Trial Courts to the RTC) and Rule 41 (appeals from the RTCs to the CA or this Court);
Rule 42 (appeals from the RTCs to the CA); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the
CA); and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to this Court).7 A scrutiny of the said rules, however,
reveals that the "fresh period rule" enunciated in Neypes need NOT apply to Rules 42, 43 and 45
as there is no interruption in the 15-day reglementary period to appeal. It is explicit in Rules 42,
43 and 45 that the appellant or petitioner is accorded a fresh period of 15 days from the notice of
the decision, award, judgment, final order or resolution or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for
new trial or reconsideration filed.8
It is, thus, now settled that the fresh period rule is applicable in criminal cases, like the instant
case, where the accused files from a judgment of conviction a motion for new trial or
reconsideration which is denied by the trial court. The accused will have a fresh 15-day period
counted from receipt of such denial within which to file his or her notice of appeal.

Xxx
 [ G.R. No. 236331, September 14, 2020 ]

RNB GARMENTS PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, V. RAMROL MULTI-PURPOSE

COOPERATIVE, MYRNA D. DESACADA, MARIA CECILIA N. OLMEDA, CARMEN F.
VINZON, ELMER GUANZON, ARNOLD TERNORA, MELCHOR GONZALES, PHILIP
BAYUGA, HERJANE B. REYES, AND SONIA D. REYES, RESPONDENTS.

The rule is that a party's appeal from a judgment will not inure to the benefit of a co-party who
failed to appeal; and as against the latter, the judgment continues to run its course until it
becomes final and executory.57 To this rule, an exception attends, "where both parties have a
commonality of interests, the appeal of one is deemed to be the vicarious appeal of the
other."58 The Court in John Kam Biak Y. Chan, Jr. v. Iglesia ni Cristo59 explained, viz.:

While it is settled that a party who did not appeal from the decision cannot seek any relief other
than what is provided in the judgment appealed from, nevertheless, when the rights and liability
of the defendants are so interwoven and dependent as to be inseparable, in which case, the
modification of the appealed judgment in favor of appellant operates as a modification to Gen.
Yoro who did not appeal. In this case, the liabilities of Gen. Yoro and appellant being solidary,
the above exception applies.60

In Maricalum Mining Corp. v. Remington Industrial Sales Corp.,61 the Court illustrated the
existence of commonality in the interests of the parties, as when: "a) their rights and liabilities
originate from only one source or title; b) homogeneous evidence establishes the existence of
their rights and liabilities; and c) whatever judgment is rendered in the case or appeal, their rights
and liabilities will be affected, even if to varying extents.

Xxx

G.R. No. 110147 April 17, 2001

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ALFONSO ROXAS CHUA, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

It has been held that "[a]n interlocutory order does not terminate or finally dismiss or finally
dispose of the case, but leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally
decided on the merits."18 It "refers to something between the commencement and end of the suit
which decides some point or matter but it is not the final decision on the whole
controversy."19 Conversely, a final order is one which leaves to the court nothing more to do to
resolve the case. The test to ascertain whether an order is interlocutory or final is: "Does it leave
something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is
interlocutory; if it does not, it is final."20

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 214435. February 14, 2022 ]

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. DAYAMON DIDATO ALO,
RESPONDENT.

DECISION

It is clear from the above provisions that a Rule 43 petition to the CA includes all awards,
judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise
of its quasi-judicial functions, except those under the Labor Code of the Philippines. Pertinently,
this Court has ruled that the list of quasi-judicial entities found in Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court is not exclusive. The case of United Coconut Planters Bank v. E. Ganzon, Inc.60 explains:

Section 1, Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure merely mentions
several quasi-judicial agencies without exclusivity in the phraseology. The
enumeration of the agencies therein mentioned is not exclusive. The introductory
phrase "[a]mong these agencies are" preceding the enumeration of specific quasi
judicial agencies only highlights the fact that the list is not meant to be exclusive
or conclusive. Further, the overture stresses and acknowledges the existence of
other quasi-judicial agencies not included in the enumeration but should be
deemed included.61 (Underscoring supplied)

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 208379. March 29, 2022 ]

LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE, CARIDAD R. VALDEHUESA, AND NORMA L.

LASALA, PETITIONERS,* VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, SECRETARY OF
FINANCE, THE NATIONAL TREASURER, BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINE DEALING & EXCHANGE CORPORATION,
PHILIPPINE DEPOSITORY & TRUST CORP., PHILIPPINE SECURITIES
SETTLEMENT CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE DEALING SYSTEM
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND VICENTE B. CASTILLO,
RESPONDENTS.

Hierarchy of courts is the mechanism that ordains a sequence of recourse to courts

vested with concurrent jurisdiction.84 The hierarchy begins from the trial courts,
then the Court of Appeals and the other intermediate courts, then finally the
Supreme Court. This sequence recognizes; (1) the various levels of courts in the
country as they are established under the Constitution and by law; (2) their ranking
and effect of their rulings in relation with one another; and (3) how they interact
with one another.85 Given the differences in these aspects, the questions these
courts resolve also differ: trial courts decide questions of fact and law at first
instance; the Court of Appeals and the other intermediate courts, both questions of
fact and law; and this Court, only questions of law in general.86
Here, petitioners filed the case directly before this Court despite the concurrent
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts to issue the writs
of certiorari and prohibition they pray for.87 Petitioners invoke "special and
important reasons"88 and "transcendental importance"89 to justify their action.

While We have previously held that the invocation of the Court's original
jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs may be allowed on the ground of special
and important reasons or transcendental importance, in the landmark case of Gios-
Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communications,90 the Court
clarified that direct recourse is allowed only when the issues presented are purely
legal:

In fine, while this Court has original and concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and
the CA in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus (extraordinary writs), direct recourse to this Court is proper
only to seek resolution of questions of law. Save for the single specific instance
provided by the Constitution under Section 18, Article VII, cases the resolution of
which depends on the determination of questions of fact cannot be brought directly
before the Court because we are not a trier of facts.91 (Emphasis supplied;
citations omitted)

Some of the issues here are not purely legal.

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 217158. March 12, 2019 ]

GIOS-SAMAR, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON GERARDO M.

MALINAO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS AND CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.

Exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts

Aside from the special civil actions over which it has original Jurisdiction, the Court,
through the years, has allowed litigants to seek direct relief from it upon allegation
of "serious and important reasons." The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on
Elections[134] (Diocese) summarized these circumstances in this wise:

(1) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at
the most immediate time;

(2) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance;

(3) cases of first impression;

(4) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court;
 (5) exigency in certain situations;

(6) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ;

(7) when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the
injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of
expression; [and]

(8) the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or
the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was
considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy."[135]

SUPREME COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION

A. Original

1. Exclusive

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the following:

1.1

Court of Appeals

1.2

Commission on Elections

1.3

Commission on Audit

1.4

Sandiganbayan