Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

Rule 42 Petition for Review RTC to CA

APPELLATE PRACTICE (1)Sps. Plopenio vs. DAR
G. R. No. 161090, July 04, 2012

CASE DIGESTS By: Alba, Ma. Angela

Doctrine: The only mode of appeal from decisions of the SAC-RTC is via a Rule
42 petition for review to the Court of Appeals, without any distinction as to
TABLE OF CONTENTS whether the appeal raises questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed
Rule 42 Petition for Review RTC to CA ...................................1 questions of fact and law.
(1)Sps. Plopenio vs. DAR .......................................................1
Facts: Petitioners in the two consolidated cases own several hectares of land of
(2) Sps. Lanaria v. Planta ........................................................2 coconut land in Caramoan, Camarines Sur. In 2000, the land of their brother
(3) Bernardo vs. People ..........................................................4 Gavino Plopenio located in the same locality was valued by the DARAB at
P51,125.60 per hectare. On this basis, petitioners offered their entire
(4) Heirs of Jose Esplana vs. CA.............................................5 landholdings to the DAR for acquisition and distribution pursuant to the
(5) Gutierrez vs. Cabrera ........................................................6 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
By: Jose Enrico Corona ..........................................................6
Land Bank sent a Notice of Valuation and Adjudication valuing the land of
(6) Barredo vs People .............................................................6 petitioner-spouses at P23,485.00 per hectare and that of petitioner Eduardo at
Rule 43 ...................................................................................7 P22,856.62 per hectare. Dissatisfied with Land Bank’s offer, petitioners rejected
the Notice of Valuation and Acquisition and referred the matter to the Provincial
(7) Fabian vs Desierto .............................................................7 Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for summary administrative proceedings.
(8) NAVA vs. NBI ....................................................................8
(9) Belongilot v. Cua ...............................................................9 A copy of the PARAD’s Decision affirming the valuation made by Land Bank was
received by petitioners on 27 September 2002. On 11 October 2002, or 14 days
(10) Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals ...............................10 thereafter, petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration. The PARAD denied
(11)Querubin vs Comelec .....................................................11 their Motion in an Order dated 20 November 2002, which petitioners received on
21 December 2002.
(12) GALINDO vs COA .........................................................12
(13) The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Petitioners then filed separate Petitions before the SAC-RTC on 6 January 2003,
Gastardo vs. Commission on Audit .......................................15 or 16 days after their receipt of the PARAD’s Order. They explained that they
were allowed to file their appeal 15 days from the receipt of the Order of denial
of their Motion for Reconsideration. Since the 15th day fell on a Sunday, they
reasoned that they should be allowed to file their appeal until 6 January 2003.

The SAC-RTC ruled that the Decision of the PARAD had already attained finality
because petitioners failed to file their Petitions on time. Petitioners moved for
reconsideration but their motions were denied. From the Decisions and Orders
of the SAC-RTC, petitioners then filed the instant Petitions for Review directly
before this Court.

Issue: Whether the Decisions or Orders of the SAC-RTC may be directly

appealed to the Supreme Court.

1
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

(2) Sps. Lanaria v. Planta

Held: No. The consolidated Petitions are immediately dismissible because G.R. No. 172891, November 22, 2007
petitioners resorted to a wrongful mode of appeal by filing the instant Rule 45 By: ARID, Hannah Mhae G.
Petitions directly with this Court.
Doctrine: There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and
Section 60 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law provides: substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of
procedure as regards Rule 42 Section 2. This ruling is in consonance with the
Section 60. Appeals. – An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Special fact that the Rules do not specify the precise documents, pleadings or parts of
Agrarian Courts by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within the records which must be annexed to the petition, apart from the assailed
fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise, the decision judgment, final order, or resolution.
shall become final.
Facts: Petitioner Francis John Lanaria is the son of decedent Belen M. Lanaria,
An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, or from any order, ruling or while respondent Francisco M. Planta is the nephew and one of the heirs of the
decision of the DAR, as the case may be, shall be by a petition for review with late Rosario Planta. Rosario was the registered owner and possessor of a parcel
the Supreme Court within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from of land situated in Iloilo City.
receipt of a copy of said decision.
Respondent was the plaintiff[1]min a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed
Clearly, following the letter of the CARL, petitioners should have appealed the against the spouses Henry Lanaria and the late Belen M. Lanariabefore the MTC
SAC-RTC Decision to the CA. While the general rule is that appeals raising pure of Oton, Iloilo. The Complaint alleged that sometime in 1950, Rosario Planta,
questions of law from decisions of RTCs are taken to this Court via a Rule 45 through her permission and generosity, allowed the grandparents and parents of
petition, decisions of trial courts designated as SACs are only appealable to the Belen Lanaria to construct their house on a portion of the parcel of land with an
Court of Appeals. implied promise to vacate the premises and restore possession thereof to her or
her heirs upon demand. A formal demand to vacate was sent to defendants on 4
The special jurisdiction of the SAC-RTC is conferred and regulated by the July 2003, but they refused to heed the same.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and appeals therefrom are governed by
Section 60 thereof. That law expressly states that appeals from SACs must be MTC: rendered its Decision in favor of respondent Francisco M. Planta.
taken to the Court of Appeals without making a distinction between appeals Respondent was declared the lawful co-owner of the subject lot. Petitioners
raising questions of fact and those dealing purely with questions of law. Ubi lex were ordered to vacate the lot and to deliver physical possession thereof to the
non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. Where the law does not distinguish, respondent, and to remove and transfer at their expense the house and other
neither should we. Consequently, we rule that the only mode of appeal from improvements introduced on the lot.
decisions of the SAC-RTC is via a Rule 42 petition for review to the Court of
Appeals, without any distinction as to whether the appeal raises questions of RTC: affirmed with modification the Decision of the MTC, deleting the award of
fact, questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. attorneys fees and litigation expenses. The RTC agreed with the MTC in finding
that the registered owner Rosario Planta and her heirs, one of whom is
respondent, are entitled to the possession of the parcel of land considering that
the subject lot is titled property. The RTC and the MTC explained that
respondent is under the protective mantle of the Torrens Title so that even if the
registered owner and successor-in-interest are not in actual possession of the
property, they are nevertheless considered owners thereof and, as such, have
the right to recover or vindicate it from any person found to be unlawfully
possessing it.

Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC.

2
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

On 3 August 2004, petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Court of
Appeals, Manila. The Petition for Review sought the reversal of the MTC and RTC Non-compliance with any of the foregoing requisites is a ground for
Decisions, and prayed for the dismissal of the unlawful detainer case. Petitioners the dismissal of a petition based on Section 3 of the same Rule, to wit:
argued the lack of a cause of action on the part of respondent. Attached to the Sec. 3. Effect of failure to comply with
Petition for Review were original or certified true copies of the decisions and requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any
orders of both lower courts. of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the
docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of
Court of Appeals: finding petitioners Petition for Review deficient in form and service of the petition, and the contents of and the
substance, resolved to outrightly dismiss the petition. documents which should accompany the petition shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration and to Allow/Admit the
Inclusion of Pleadings and Other Material Documents. Petitioners explained that The Court ruled that the subsequent submission of the following documents
the failure to attach copies of documents in support of their petition was due to annexed to their Motion for Reconsideration - viz, Complaint for Ejectment,
oversight and inadvertence, and asked the Court of Appeals to allow the Transfer Certificate of Title, Answer to the Complaint, Four Affidavits, Position
inclusion of the pleadings attached to the Motion for Reconsideration, in the Paper filed by petitioners, Memorandum on Appeal, Appellees Memorandum,
most prevailing interests of substantive justice, equity and substantive rights. and Motion for Reconsideration - constitutes substantial compliance with Section
The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration. 2, Rule 42. Jurisprudence pertaining to the same has established that
submission of a document together with the motion for reconsideration
Issue: W/N the CA erred in denying the Motion for Reconsideration and in not constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that relevant or
allowing the inclusion of the pleadings and other material documents submitted pertinent documents be submitted along with the petition, and calls for the
together with the Motion for Reconsideration. relaxation of procedural rules. There is ample jurisprudence holding that the
subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the
Held: YES, petition is meritorious. relaxation of the rules of procedure. This ruling is in consonance with the fact
Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure embodies the procedure that the Rules do not specify the precise documents, pleadings or parts of the
for appeals from the Decision of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate records which must be annexed to the petition, apart from the assailed
jurisdiction. Said section reads: judgment, final order, or resolution.
SEC. 2. Form and Contents. The petition shall be
filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy Moreover, under Section 3(d), Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court
intended for the court being indicated as such by the of Appeals, the Court of Appeals is with authority to require the parties to
petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary to promote the interests of
the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges substantial justice. When a petition does not have the complete annexes or the
thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the required number of copies, the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall
specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) require the petitioner to complete the annexes or file the necessary number of
set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the copies of the petition before docketing the case.
issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or
both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and Respondent contends that petitioners violated anew formal and procedural
the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of requirements for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 4(d), Rule 45
the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming that the Petition for Review,
originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of Motion for Reconsideration, other Material Documents, and Comment submitted
both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of to this Court were neither duplicate originals nor duly certified true copies. In an
the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies En Banc Decision promulgated on 3 February 2000, this Court declared that
thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of Rule 42, governing petitions for review from the RTC to the Court of Appeals,
the record as would support the allegations of the petition. requires that only the judgments or final orders of the lower courts need to be
(Emphasis ours.) certified true copies or duplicate originals.

3
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

petition on July 1, 2004. Petitioner in fact received the June 21, 2004
(3) Bernardo vs. People Resolution only on July 9, 2004.
G.R. No. 166980. April 3, 2007
By: Gerard Bernardo By Resolution of July 30, 2004, the appellate court denied petitioner’s
petition due course for having been filed 15 days late and for failure to
Doctrine: The extension should thus be tacked to the original period, to attach the MeTC Decision and other pertinent and material documents.
commence immediately after the expiration of such period. The court has no Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by Resolution of
discretion to reckon the commencement of the extension from a date later than January 14, 2005, the appellate court noting that the MeTC Decision attached to
the expiration of such original period, not even if the expiry date is a Saturday, the Motion for Reconsideration was a mere photocopy and uncertified.
Sunday, or a legal holiday.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in reckoning the period of 15 days
Facts: extension from the expiry date of the original period of 15 days from receipt of
(basically, nag ask si petitioner ng 30 days extension to file petition for review the decision of the regional trial court or final order appealed from, instead of
from June 1, 2004 (15th day after decision). CA granted the motion, but, for 15 from date of the receipt of the order granting extension.
days only (bale, up to June 16, 2004), however, this decision was only made on
June 21, 2004) Ruling: NO.
Petitioner argues that the 15-day extension granted to him by the appellate
Two Informations were filed against the petitioner for violating B.P. 22. At the court should be reckoned from his date of receipt of its June 21, 2004
pretrial, petitioner failed to appear despite notice, prompting the MeTC to issue Resolution. The argument fails. A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC is clear. It provides that
a warrant of arrest against him and set the cases for trial in absentia. “[a]ny extension of time to file the required pleading should . . . be counted
After the prosecution presented its first witness, petitioner filed a Waiver of from the expiration of the period . . .” The extension should thus be tacked to
Appearance, a Motion to Lift Warrant of Arrest, and a Motion to Quash. The trial the original period, to commence immediately after the expiration of such
court lifted the warrant of arrest in view of petitioner’s appearance but denied period. The court has no discretion to reckon the commencement of the
the Motion to Quash for lack of merit. At the following trial date, petitioner failed extension from a date later than the expiration of such original period, not even
to appear despite notice, drawing the trial court to proceed with his trial in if the expiry date is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday.
absentia and issue warrant of arrest against him. The trial court found petitioner
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. 22 in all the cases. Petitioner goes on to fault the appellate court in not resolving his motion for
extension before the expiration of the 15-day extension so that he would have
Ten months following the promulgation of the judgment, petitioner posted a known that his request for 30 days was not granted.
bond before another branch of the court. The trial court cancelled the bond and
issued an alias warrant of arrest. Petitioner thereupon filed a Motion for Partial Petitioner’s position does not lie too. Section 1 of Rule 42 is clear. The Court of
Reconsideration was denied. Appeals may grant an “additional period of 15 days only” within which to file the
petition for review. Albeit under the same section, a “further extension” not to
Petitioner elevated the case to the CA. Petitioner filed with the appellate exceed 15 days may be granted “for the most compelling reason,” petitioner
court a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review within had no basis to assume that his request for a 30-day extension is meritorious
30 days from June 1, 2004, the 15th day from his counsel’s receipt of and would be granted.
the RTC Order denying his Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound
The Court of Appeals, by Resolution of June 21, 2004, granted petitioner discretion of the court, and lawyers should never presume that their motions for
an extension, but only 15 days pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 42, to file extension or postponement would be granted or that they would be granted the
his Petition. Apparently unaware of the above-said Resolution of June length of time they pray for.
21, 2004 under which his petition would be filed not later than June 16,
2004, petitioner used up the 30-day extension sought and filed his Petitioner claims, however, that his motion for extension presented a compelling
reason for the grant of a further extension. Justifying the 30-day period sought,

4
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

petitioner explains that he was implicitly seeking both a 15-day extension and a copy of the RTC decision on February 21, 2002. On March 7, 2002, petitioners’
further extension of 15 days. counsel filed before the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of 30 days
within which to file a petition for review reckoned from March 8, 2002. He stated
The wording of the rule with respect to further extension is couched in that he could not submit the petition on the deadline, March 8, 2002, due to
restrictive terms. Section 1 of Rule 42 provides that “[n]o further extension shall Jose Esplana’s untimely death, his day to day court appearance and the
be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed voluminous paper works in his office. Court of Appeals issued a Resolution
fifteen (15) days.” granting petitioners only 15 days, reckoned from March 8, 2002 or until March
23, 2002, which was received by the petitioners’ counsel on May 29, 2002.
Petitioner’s motion for extension was anchored on a lone ground, his counsel’s However, he already filed the petition for review on April 5, 2002, which was
being “pre-occupied in the preparation of petitions, memoranda, briefs, and within the 30-day extension requested for. Court of Appeals dismissed the
other lengthy pleadings in cases as important as this case” and in “daily court petition for review and expunged it from the records of the case for having been
appearance and personal commitments.” Sustaining petitioner’s lone ground filed out of time on April 5, 2002, instead of the deadline, March 23, 2002. After
would obliterate the distinguishing essence of a further extension for it would do the denial of their motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed a petition for
away with the necessity of presenting compelling grounds addressed to the certiorari.
sound discretion of the court.
Issue: Whether or not the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
But crediting arguendo petitioner’s “implicit” justification, this Court sees no to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal of the petitioners on the
reason to disturb the exercise by the appel late court of its discretion in denying ground that it was filed out of time.
a “cumulative” extension and in effectively ruling that heavy workload of
counsel is not a most compelling reason. Ruling: No. Petition is dismissed.

(4) Heirs of Jose Esplana vs. CA Sec. 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides for the manner an appeal by
G.R. No. 155758, October 31, 2008 petition for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals is
By: Donna Bigornia taken:

Doctrine: Sec. 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is very clear that petitioners are SECTION 1. How appeal taken; time for filing.—A party desiring to appeal from
allowed an extension of only 15 days to file a petition for review with the Court a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate
of Appeals. Although a further extension not to exceed 15 days may be granted jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals,
only for the most compelling reason. Further, before the Court of Appeals may paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and
grant the 15-day extension to file a petition for review, Sec. 1, Rule 42 of the other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the
Rules of Court requires the payment of the full amount of the docket and other Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The
lawful fees and the deposit of the necessary amount for costs before the petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
expiration of the reglementary period. decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new
trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion
Facts: Esplana filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession, and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees
quieting of title with damages against Pedro de Lima before the Municipal Trial and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary
Court (MTC). The MTC tried and decided the case as an action for forcible entry. period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen
The MTC dismissed the complaint. Regional Trial Court (RTC) remanded the case (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further
to the MTC for the court to decide the issue of ownership. Pursuant to the RTC extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in
Order, the MTC tried the case anew to resolve who between the contending no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
parties has the real ownership over the property. MTC found the preponderance Sec. 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is very clear that petitioners are allowed an
of evidence in favor of the defendant; hence, it dismissed the Complaint. The extension of only 15 days to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
petitioners appealed the MTC decision to the RTC. RTC affirmed the decision of Although a further extension not to exceed 15 days may be granted only for the
the MTC in toto and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners’ counsel received a most compelling reason. The grounds stated by petitioners (death of the original

5
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

party; indecision to pursue the case on appeal) in not so compelling as to entitle

them to a further extension. Formal defects in petitions are not uncommon. The Court has encountered
Further, before the Court of Appeals may grant the 15-day extension to file a previous petitions for review that erroneously impleaded the Court of Appeals.
petition for review, Sec. 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court requires the payment In those cases, the Court merely called the petitioners attention to the defects
of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit of the and proceeded to resolve the case on their merits.
necessary amount for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period.
These, petitioners failed to do. The Court finds no reason why it should not afford the same liberal treatment in
Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound this case. While the Court has unquestionably the discretion to dismiss the
discretion of the court. Lawyers are expected to be knowledgeable of the rule on appeal for being defective, sound policy dictates that it is far better to dispose of
the grant of such motion. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the cases on the merits, rather than on technicality as the latter approach may
reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are result in injustice. This is in accordance with Rule 1, Section 6[33] which
considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly encourages a reading of the procedural requirements in a manner that will help
discharge of judicial business. secure and not defeat justice.

BAKA ITANONG NI SIR (REGARDING DEFECT IN NOTICE OF HEARING)

(5) Gutierrez vs. Cabrera Apropos the last issue, concerning the motion to dismiss filed by respondent
By: Jose Enrico Corona before the MTC, we have time and again warned that a notice of hearing which
does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules
Doctrine: Formal defects in petitions are not uncommon. The Court has of Court, is a worthless piece of paper and would not merit any consideration
encountered previous petitions for review that erroneously impleaded the Court from the courts. The clerk of court does not have the duty to accept it, much
of Appeals. In those cases, the Court merely called the petitioners attention to less, to bring it to the attention of the presiding judge. The defect cannot be
the defects and proceeded to resolve the case on their merits. cured by any subsequent action of the court and it is grave abuse of discretion
of the court to overlook the mandatory rule on notice and act on the motion.
Facts: Felicima Gutierrez purchased a land from her mother, Buenaventura.
Primitive entered into a lease agreement with Cabrera over the parcel of land. (6) Barredo vs People
After some time, Felicima’s son, Apolinario, checked the property. Cabrera By: Kathrina De Castro
hacked Apolinario with a bolo. Cabrera then filed a case for trespassing before
the MTC. the complaint was dismissed. Petitioners now asked Cabrera o vacate DOCTRINE: Failure to attach a copy of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)
the land but Cabrera refused. Petitioner filed an ejectment suit before the MTC. decision in a petition under Rule 42 is not fatal where it is the decision of the
Cabrera filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. MTC Regional Trial Court (RTC), not that of the MTCC, which is the subject of the
denied the motion. MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. RTC affirmed despite appeal
the allegation that what was involved was agrarian dispute hence it should have
been within DAR’s jurisdiction. FACTS: Petitioner Barredo was charged for perjury before the Municipal Trial
Court (MTCC) in Cities of Butuan City. She allegedly makes an untruthful
Cabrera appealed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner opposed on the ground that statement in her affidavit-complaint for usurpation of authority and illegal
the lower court judge was not impleaded hence contrary with Sec. 2 Rule 42. CA detention against Atty. Ricardo Gonzalez. That the latter “usurped police
reversed the decision of the MTC and the RTC. functions” by instructing the police to impound her truck loaded with sacks of
rice and illegally detain her truck helpers following a vehicular mishap on
Issue: Whether or not the appeal should have been dismissed for failure to September 12, 1998 which involved her truck. The MTCC rendered judgment
implead the lower court judge? convicting Barredo of perjury. The decision was affirmed by the RTC. On petition
for review with The CA, it dismissed the petition outright on technical ground –
Held: No. Impleading a lower court judge as respondent in the petition for failure to attach a copy of the MTCC decision.
review does not automatically mean the dismissal of the appeal but merely
authorizes the dismissal of the petition.

6
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

Barredo filed an MR but was denied, hence, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Barredo contends that her petition before the appellate court merits Rule 43
reinstatement since she attached thereto a carbon original of the RTC decision (7) Fabian vs Desierto
which affirmed the trial court’s decision, and which restated verbatim the G.R. 129742, 16 September 1998
findings of facts of the trial court. On the other hand, Atty. Ricardo Gonzalez By: Rhio
claimed that “no persuasive reason” was given by petitioner to justify her failure
to append to her petition a copy of the MTCC decision. Doctrine: The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure preclude appeals from quasi-
judicial agencies to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in dismissing Barredo’s petition for review under Rule 45. Under the present Rule 45, appeals may be brought through a
petition for review on certiorari but only from judgments and final orders of the
HELD: Yes. While Rule 42, Section 2(d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as courts enumerated in Section 1 thereof. Appeals from judgments and final
amended, requires that, inter alia, the petition shall “be accompanied by clearly orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought to the Court of
legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both Appeals on a verified petition for review, under the requirements and conditions
lower courts,” the cited deficiency in petitioner’s petition does not make it in Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide for a uniform
insufficient in form and substance since it is the decision of the RTC, not that of rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.
the MTCC, which is the subject of her appeal. What is important is that in her
petition, she attached thereto the original copy of the RTC decision which Facts: Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT Construction
quoted extensively the findings of the MTCC, including its discussion on the Development Corporation (PROMAT) which was engaged in the construction
application of the law, that were affirmed in toto. business. Private respondent Nestor V. Agustin was the incumbent District
Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering District (FMED) when he allegedly
In the case of Silverio vs CA: “x x x [A] party-litigant should be given the fullest committed the offenses for which he was administratively charged in the Office
opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense. He ought not to of the Ombudsman.
lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. Rules of procedure should
be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their PROMAT participated in the bidding for government construction projects
strict and rigid application based on technicalities will only frustrate rather than including those under the FMED, and private respondent, reportedly taking
promote substantial justice. x x x. In the case at bar, it was inappropriate for advantage of his official position, inveigled petitioner into an amorous
the Court of Appeals to deny the petition on the ground alone that the petitioner relationship. Their affair lasted for some time, in the course of which private
failed to attach to the said petition a duplicate original or true copy of the MTC respondent gifted PROMAT with public works contracts and interceded for it in
decision because it was supposed to review the decision not of the MTC but of problems concerning the same in his office. Later, misunderstandings and
the RTC, notwithstanding that the latter affirmed in toto the judgment of the unpleasant incidents developed between the parties and when petitioner tried to
MTC. In short, the failure to attach the MTC decision did not adversely affect the terminate their relationship, private respondent refused and resisted her
sufficiency of the petition because it was, in any event, accompanied by the RTC attempts to do so to the extent of employing acts of harassment, intimidation
decision sought to be reviewed.” and threats. She eventually filed the aforementioned administrative case against
him.

Respondent Ombudsman, in an Order dated February 26, 1996, approved the

aforesaid resolution with modifications, by finding private respondent guilty of
misconduct and meting out the penalty of suspension without pay for one year.
After private respondent moved for reconsideration, respondent Ombudsman
discovered that the former’s new counsel had been his “classmate and close
associate” hence he inhibited himself. The case was transferred to respondent
Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero who, in the now challenged Joint Order of June
18, 1997, set aside the February 26, 1997 Order of respondent Ombudsman
and exonerated private respondent from the administrative charges.

7
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

(08) NAVA vs. NBI

Petitioner’s argument: Fabian claims that what is proscribed is the passage of G.R. No. 134509. April 12, 2005
a law “increasing” the appellate jurisdiction of this Court “as provided in this
Constitution,” and such appellate jurisdiction includes “all cases in which only an Doctrine: Appeals from the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman
error or question of law is involved.” Since Section 5(2)(e), Article VIII of the in administrative cases are now cognizable by the Court of Appeals,
Constitution authorizes this Court to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm nevertheless in cases in which it is alleged that the Ombudsman has acted with
on appeal or certiorari the aforesaid final judgment or orders “as the law or the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a special
Rules of Court may provide,” said Section 27 does not increase this Court’s civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed with this Court to set aside
appellate jurisdiction since, by providing that the mode of appeal shall be by the Ombudsman's order or resolution.
petition for certiorari under Rule 45, then what may be raised therein are only
questions of law of which this Court already has jurisdiction. Facts: The case subject of this Petition emanated from anonymous letter-
complaints filed before the Office of the Ombudsman alleging that fake
Issue: Whether Sec. 27 of RA 6770 which authorizes an appeal by certiorari to Equivalent Record Forms (ERFs) of several teachers of the Davao City National
this Court of the aforementioned adjudications of the Office of the Ombudsman High School were made the bases for the Plantilla Allocation List (PAL) for
is not violative of the Constitution calendar year 1988 and for the teachers' corresponding promotion and salary
upgrading.
Held: No. The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure preclude appeals from quasi- The Office of the Ombudsman referred the matter to the NBI and directed it to
judicial agencies to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari conduct a fact-finding investigation. The investigation by the NBII disclosed,
under Rule 45. In the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 1 of Rule 45, on among others, the submission by a certain Velez of a Service Record containing
“Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court,” explicitly states: fabricated facts and the handing in of fake ERFs by other teachers which were
the bases of the PAL approved as correct by Nava who was then the DECS
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.—A person desiring to appeal Regional Director. The NBI recommended the filing of appropriate charges
by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of against the teachers and officials concerned.
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever Nava filed before the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan a Motion for
authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review Reinvestigation which was granted in a Resolution. Special Prosecution Officer
on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be Corpuz recommended the dismissal of the charges against Nava and Granada
distinctly set forth. for insufficiency of evidence. This recommendation was, however, disapproved
by the Ombudsman.
Under the present Rule 45, appeals may be brought through a petition for A Petition filed pursuant to Section 27, Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known
review on certiorari but only from judgments and final orders of the courts as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," in relation to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
enumerated in Section 1 thereof. Appeals from judgments and final orders of Court, petitioner Venancio R. Nava (hereinafter, Nava) assails the disapproval
quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought to the Court of Appeals by the Ombudsman of the Order.
on a verified petition for review, under the requirements and conditions in Rule The NBI pointed out that the instant Petition is one for review on certiorari
43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide for a uniform rule of pursuant to Section 27 of R.A. 6770 in relation to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. which provision of law had already been declared unconstitutional in Fabian
case. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, appeals from orders, directives or decisions
Thus, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the
this Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the proscription in Section 30, Article Court. In any event, as the instant case is not an administrative disciplinary
VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of case, the proper remedy should have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
this Court. of the Rules of Court. However, even assuming that this remedy was pursued,
since there is nothing on record to even suggest that the Ombudsman
committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to have the case against Nava
dismissed, the NBI insists that the Petition must fail.

8
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

Nava in his Consolidated Reply stressed that the instant Petition was filed on exercise of the powers of the Ombudsman based on constitutional mandate and
before the promulgation of the Fabian case; and maintained that it was then his the courts should not interfere in such exercise.
honest position that Section 27 of R.A. 6770 was available as a remedy in non-
administrative cases notwithstanding its silence on the matter. Nava implored
the Court to consider the instant Petition instead as a petition for certiorari (09) Belongilot v. Cua
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court as the actuations of the Ombudsman G.R. No. 160933, Nov. 24, 2010
amount to a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its By: Jovero, John Tristram V.
jurisdiction.
Doctrine: Remedy against decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal
Issue: WON the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion. cases should be a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal by certiorari
Held: NO. under Rule 45. However, the Supreme Court has the duty to take cognizance of
The court agrees that the alternative remedy avails. Although as a consequence the allegations of grave abuse of discretion. Thus, in the performance of this
of the decision in Fabian, appeals from the orders, directives, or decisions of the duty, there is no legal stumbling block if it deviates from the requirements of
Ombudsman in administrative cases are now cognizable by the Court of form and procedure that stand in the way in favor of substance.
Appeals, 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, Facts: The petitioner’s wife, Leonarda Belongilot, was the owner of several
a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed with this Court to parcels of land. Sometime in 1979, Juanito Constantino forcibly entered and
set aside the Ombudsman's order or resolution. In Kuizon case, we held that the took possession of Lot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (the subject lots), and converted them
Court has jurisdiction over such petitions questioning resolutions or orders of into a fishpond. Leonarda filed an ejectment complaint against Constantino
the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. As Nava himself beseeched the before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Board (PARAB). Provincial
Court to consider his Petition as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, we shall Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Gregorio B. Sapora, in his Decision of May
treat the same as one. 21, 2001, directed Constantino and all persons claiming rights under him to
Deliberating upon the Petition and the arguments in support thereof side by side vacate the subject lots.
with the comments of the respondent thereon, we find that the Petition fails to
show a grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction Constantino filed, on October 8, 2001, a notice of appeal before the PARAB, but
on the part of the Ombudsman. Nava's asseveration that the Ombudsman PARAD Toribio F. Ilao dismissed this notice of appeal for having been filed out of
gravely abused his discretion when he disapproved the recommendation of the time. PARAD Ilao issued a writ of execution in favor of Leonarda.
Special Prosecutor urging the dismissal of the case against the petitioner and
without giving any reasons therefor is specious. The Ombudsman is not duty Constantino, through Atty. Restituto David, filed, on May 21, 2002, a petition for
bound to render anew a statement of facts or elaborate on the applicable law. injunction with application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) before the
Likewise, it cannot be said that the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), without asking for
discretion because he opined differently from the Special Prosecutor that, under the reconsideration of the dismissal of his notice of appeal. He prayed that the
the facts obtaining in the case, there is probable cause to believe that Nava is implementation of PARAD Sapora’s May 21, 2001 Decision be restrained and
guilty of the offense charged. If the Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint that his notice of appeal, dated October 8, 2001, be given due course.
outright for lack of merit, it necessarily follows that it is also within his discretion
to determine whether the evidence before him is sufficient to establish probable Leonarda filed, on November 21, 2002, a motion to dismiss the petition for
cause. In case of conflict between the conclusion of the Ombudsman and the injunction, alleging that the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the petition because
Special Prosecutor, the former's decision shall prevail since the Office of the of Constantino’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the April 16, 2002
Special Prosecutor is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman. Order of PARAD Ilao. She further argues that the decision sought to be
The Ombudsman's act of disapproving the recommendation of the Special restrained had already been implemented. Meanwhile, the DARAB, in its
Prosecutor to dismiss the case against Nava was not whimsical or capricious. He Resolution of December 27, 2002, granted Constantino’s application for a writ of
disapproved the recommendation of the Special Prosecutor because in his injunction, and "enjoined" the implementation of the writ of execution. The
estimation, there was sufficient evidence to indict the accused. This was an DARAB also ordered that the records of the case be elevated to it within 15 days
from receipt of its resolution.

9
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

On January 20, 2003, the petitioner filed with the Ombudsman an amended (10) Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals
criminal complaint, for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, against the By: Jesus Ros Lapuz, Jr
respondents in their capacity as officers and members of the Department of
Agrarian Reform and the DARAB, respectively. Dontrine: Orders and decisions of the Ombudsman are appealable to the Court
of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Ombudsman dismissed the complaint. Petitioner appealed the decision of the
Ombudsman via Rule 45 instead of Rule 65.
Facts: This involves the charges of Plunder and violation of the Anti-Graft and
Issue: Whether or not appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy? Corrupt Practices Act involving the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking
Building against former Makati mayor Binay jr. The Ombudsman found after
Held: No. It is not the proper remedy. The proper remedy is a petition for conducting a fact-finding investigation that the evidence against Binay Jr. is
certiorari under Rule 65. However, SC still took cognizance of the case. strong thereby placing him under a preventive suspension for not more than 6
months without pay, during the pendency of the cases against him. On the
The petitioner’s complaint before the Ombudsman, charging the respondents other hand, Binay Jr. contended, among others, that he could no longer be
with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, is undoubtedly prosecuted because the alleged anomalies against him transpired during his first
criminal in nature. The petitioner’s recourse to this Court should have, term as Mayor of Makati and having been elected for the second term, it
therefore, been through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, instead of a effectively condoned his administrative liability rendering the case moot and
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Thus, from a procedural academic. In addition, Binay jr. likewise contends that, in any event, the
perspective, the OSG’s claim that the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy preventive suspension order by the Ombudsman was misplaced as it failed to
appears to be correct. show that the evidence of his guilt is not strong. Thereafter, the Court Appeals
issued a TRO against the implementation of the suspension order issued by the
We would have readily agreed with the OSG’s conclusion had the petitioner Ombudsman, to which the latter elevated by the Supreme Court contending that
simply dwelt on errors of law in his petition. Our reading of the petition, the CA has no subject matter jurisdiction over the matter as under the
however, and as our discussions below will show, readily reveals that the Ombudsman Act, only the Supreme Court may enjoin its orders.
petition, while entitled and presented as a petition for review on certiorari, in
fact, outlines and charges acts that collectively constitute grave abuse of Issue: Does the CA have subject jurisdiction over the instant case rendering
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the the second paragraph of the Ombudsman Act unconstitutional?
Ombudsman. In other words, while the petitioner followed the Rule 45
procedures, the substance of the petition handily satisfies the requirements of a Held: Yes.
Rule 65 petition for certiorari. Thus viewed, the issue before us is whether the
procedure and its form or substance should have primacy. Since the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 limits the remedy against
“decision or findings” of the Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal and thus – similar
Our choice when faced with this kind of conflict, particularly one that involves to the fourth paragraph of Section 27, RA 6770- attempts to effectively increase
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, is clear. No the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence, it
less than the Constitution under Section 1, Article VIII expressly directs the is therefore concluded that the former provision is also unconstitutional and
Judiciary, as a matter of power and duty, not only "to settle actual controversies perforce, invalid. Contrary to the Ombudsman’s posturing, Fabian should
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable" but, "to squarely apply since the above-stated Ombudsman Act provisions are in part
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting material in that they “cover the same specific or particular subject matter,” that
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of is, the manner of judicial review over issuances of the Ombudsman.
the Government." We, thus, have the duty to take cognizance of the allegations
of grave abuse of discretion; in the performance of this duty, we see no legal
stumbling block if we deviate from the requirements of form and procedure that In the case of Fabian, the Court struck down the fourth paragraph of Section 27,
stand in the way in favor of substance. RA 6770 as unconstitutional since it had the effect of increasing the appellate

10
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

jurisdiction of the Court without its advice and concurrence in violation of referred to as “Smartmatic JV”), Indra Sistemas, S.A. (Indra) and MIRU
Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, this provision was Systems Co. Ltd. likewise signified their interest in the project, but only Indra,
found to be inconsistent with Section 1, Rule 45 of the present 1997 Rules of aside from Smartmatic JV, submitted its bid.
Procedure which, as above intimated, applies only to a review of “judgments or
final orders of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Upon evaluation of the submittals, the BAC, through its Resolution No. 1,
Appeals, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts authorized by law”; and not of declared Smartmatic JV and Indra eligible to participate in the second stage of
quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the remedy now the bidding process. The BAC then issued a Notice requiring them to submit
being a Rule 43 appeal to the Court of Appeals. their Final Revised Technical Tenders and Price proposals to which the eligible
participants complied. Smartmatic JV, on March 26, 2015, was declared to have
tendered a complete and responsive Overall Summary of the Financial Proposal.
As a consequence of the SC’s ratiocination that Section 27 of the Ombudsman Meanwhile, Indra was disqualified for submitting a nonresponsive bid.
Act should be struck down as unconstitutional, and in line with the regulatory
philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Subsequently, for purposes of post-qualification evaluation, the BAC required
Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman Smartmatic JV to submit additional documents and a prototype sample of its
in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under the OMR. The prototype was subjected to testing to gauge its compliance with the
provisions of Rule 43. Since the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 limits requirements outlined in the project's Terms of Reference (TOR).
the remedy against “decision or findings” of the Ombudsman to a Rule 45
appeal and thus — similar to the fourth paragraph of Section 27, RA 6770 — After the conduct of post-qualification, the BAC, through Resolution No. 9 dated
attempts to effectively increase the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction May 5, 2015, disqualified Smartmatic JV on two grounds, viz.:
without its advice and concurrence, it is therefore concluded that the former
provision is also unconstitutional and perforce, invalid. 1. Failure to submit valid AOI; and
2. The demo unit failed to meet the technical requirement that the system shall
(11)Querubin vs Comelec be capable of writing all data/files, auditlog, statistics and ballot images
G.R. No. 218787. December 8, 2015 simultaneously in at least two (2) data storages.
By: Razna Mano
The ruling prompted Smartmatic JV to move for reconsideration which was
denied by BAC.
Doctrine: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the phrase “decision, Aggrieved, Smartmatic JV filed a Protest to the COMELEC En Banc seeking
order, or ruling” of constitutional commissions, the Commission on Elections permission to conduct another technical demonstration. Accordingly,
included, that may be brought directly to the SC on certiorari is not all Smartmatic JV was allowed to prove compliance with the technical specifications
encompassing, and that it only relates to those rendered in the commissions’ for the second time, but this time before the electoral tribunal's Technical
exercise of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Evaluation Committee (TEC). This was followed by another technical
demonstration before the Commission en banc.

Facts: On October 27, 2014, the COMELEC En Banc, through its Resolution No. The seven-man commission was unanimous in holding that Smartmatic JV’s
14-0715, released the bidding documents for the “Two-Stage Competitive OMR+ sufficiently satisfied the technical requirements itemized in the TOR.
Bidding for the Lease of Election Management System (EMS) and Precinct-Based
Optical Mark Reader (OMR) or Optical Scan (OP-SCAN) System” to be used in Notwithstanding Smartmatic JV’s compliance with the technical requirements in
the 2016 National and Local Elections. The COMELEC Bids and Awards the TOR, Commissioner Luie Tito F. Guia (Guia) would nonetheless dissent in
Committee (BAC) set the deadline for the submission by interested parties of part, questioning the sufficiency of the documents submitted by the Smartmatic
their eligibility requirements and initial technical proposal on December 4, 2014. JV.

The joint venture of Smartmatic-TIM Corporation (SMTC), Smartmatic Petitioners now assail the Decision of the COMELEC through Rule 64.
International Holding B.V., and Jarltech International Corporation (collectively

11
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

In challenging, petitioners; filing as taxpayers, alleged that the COMELEC en distinction between the instant petition and Pates, however, is that in Pates,
banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of therein petitioner failed to present an exceptional circumstance or any
jurisdiction in declaring Smartmatic JV as the bidder with the lowest calculated compelling reason that would have warranted the liberal application of the Rules
responsive bid. According to petitioners, Smartmatic JV cannot be declared of Court. In stark contrast, herein petitioners, as will later on be discussed, were
eligible, even more so as the bidder with the lowest calculated responsive bid, able to establish a meritorious case for the relaxation of the rules, relieving
because one of its proponents, SMTC, holding 46.5% of the shares of them from the rigid application of procedural requirements. We therefore treat
Smartmatic JV, no longer has a valid corporate purpose as required under Sec. the instant recourse as one filed not merely in relation to, but under Rule 65.
14 of BP 68 and that the primary purpose of SMTC is to to do, perform and
comply will all the obligations needed for the automation of the 2010 national (12) GALINDO vs COA
and local elections which was already fulfilled. GR No. 210788, January 10, 2017
By: Mariz
Issue: Whether or not Rule 64 is the proper remedy.
Doctrine: In administrative disciplinary cases decided by the COA, the proper
Held: NO. remedy in case of an adverse decision is an appeal to the Civil Service
Commission and not a petition for certiorari before this Court under Rule 64.
The Court has consistently held that the phrase “decision, order, or ruling” of
constitutional commissions, the COMELEC included, that may be brought directly Facts: On 2 June 2008, then MWSS Administrator Diosdado Jose M. Allado
to the Supreme Court on certiorari is not all-encompassing, and that it only wrote a letter to then COA Chairman Reynaldo A. Villar (Chairman Villar) about
relates to those rendered in the commissions’ exercise of adjudicatory or quasi- unrecorded checks relating to Mendoza's cash advances which were allegedly
judicial powers. In the case of the COMELEC, this would limit the provision’s used to pay claims for bonuses and other benefits of persons assigned at the
coverage to the decisions, orders, or rulings issued pursuant to its authority to COA Auditing Unit of the MWSS (COA-MWSS).
be the sole judge of generally all controversies and contests relating to the
elections, returns, and qualifications of elective offices. Chairman Villar issued Office Order No. 2009-528, dated 21 July 2009, and
constituted a team from the COA's Fraud Audit and Investigation Office - Legal
The instant petition revolves around the issue on whether or not Smartmatic JV Services Sector (FAIO-LSS) for a fact-finding investigation. The team submitted
is eligible to participate in the bidding process for the COMELEC’s procurement its Investigation Report dated 24 June 2010. The COA summarized the results of
of 23,000 units of optical mark readers. The case does not stem from an the Investigation Report as follows:
election controversy involving the election, qualification, or the returns of an
elective office. Rather, it pertains to the propriety of the polling commission’s 1. In 2005 and 2006, COA-MWSS personnel received cash amounting to
conduct of the procurement process, and its initial finding that Smartmatic JV is ₱9,182,038.00; and in 2007, ₱38,551,133.40 from the CAs drawn by Ms.
eligible to participate therein. It springs from the COMELEC’s compliance with Mendoza in payments of allowances and bonuses;
the Constitutional directive to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election. Specifically, it arose from the electoral 2. In previous years (1999 to 2003), a total amount of ₱1,171,855.00
commission’s exercise of Sec. 12 of RA 8436, otherwise known as the representing bonuses and other benefits was also received by COAMWSS
Automated Elections Law, as amended by RA 9369, which authorized the personnel from the MWSS;
COMELEC “to procure, in accordance with existing laws, by purchase, lease, rent
or other forms of acquisition, supplies, equipment, materials, software, facilities, 3. Atty. Cabibihan and 10 of his staff availed of the Car Assistance Plan (CAP) of
and other services, from local or foreign sources free from taxes and import the [MEWF] under which they paid only 40% of the purchase price of the vehicle
duties, subject to accounting and auditing rules and regulation.” by way of loan from and payable to the MEWF in the total amount of
P2,878,669.36, while the balance of 60% was paid by MEWF, hence,
It goes without saying that petitioners’ action, having been lodged through an constituting fringe benefits in the total amount of ₱4,318,004.03;
improper petition, is susceptible to outright dismissal. As the Court held in Pates
v. COMELEC, 591 SCRA 481 (2009), a Rule 64 petition cannot simply be
equated to Rule 65 even if it expressly refers to the latter rule. The clear

12
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

On 30 July 2010, Chairman Villar issued Letter Charges for Grave Misconduct
and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations to petitioners Galindo Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that "[u]nless otherwise
and Pinto, along with other COA-MWSS personnel. provided by this Constitution, or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
The COA found that the allegations against petitioners Galindo and Pinto are aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof." The
supported by substantial evidence, and found them guilty of Grave Misconduct Administrative Code of 1987 is the law that provided for the Civil Service
and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. The COA determined Commission's appellate jurisdiction in administrative disciplinary cases:
that petitioners Galindo and Pinto received unauthorized allowances from
Mendoza's cash advances, and availed of the MEWF's car assistance plan. The Section 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. – (1) The Commission shall decide upon
COA also found that Pinto received benefits and/or bonuses from the MWSS appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty
from 1999 to 2003. The COA imposed on petitioners Galindo and Pinto the of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty
penalty of suspension for one year without pay. days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from
office. A complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen
The COA relied on the basic rule in administrative cases that the quantum of against a government official or employee in which case it may hear and decide
evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial the case or it may deputize any department or agency or official or group of
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might officials to conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation shall be
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be
imposed or other action to be taken.
Galindo and Pinto, along with the other respondents in the administrative case,
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the COA denied in its Resolution dated (2) The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces,
2 October 2013. Petitioners Galindo and Pinto, through their counsel Egargo cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters
Puertollano Gervacio Law Offices, received the COA's Resolution on 8 October involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their
2013. Their counsel withdrew their services on 21 October 2013. jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is
suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding
Galindo and Pinto filed, through their new counsel Walden James G. Carbonell, thirty days' salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is
the present petition on 30 January 2014. appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the
department and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall
Issue: Whether or not petitioners availed of the correct remedy be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall
be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned.
Held: No.
(3) An investigation may be entrusted to regional director or similar officials
In administrative disciplinary cases decided by the COA, the proper remedy who shall make the necessary report and recommendation to the chief of
in case of an adverse decision is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission and bureau or office or department within the period specified in Paragraph (4) of
not a petition for certiorari before this Court under Rule 64. the following Section.

Rule 64 governs the review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the (4) An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case the
Commission on Audit and the Commission on Elections. It refers to Rule 65 for penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having
the mode of review of the judgment or final order or resolution of the been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the
Commission on Audit and the Commission on Elections. A petition filed under event he wins an appeal.
Rule 65 requires that the "tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with Section 49. Appeals. – (1) Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there adversely affected by the decision within fifteen days from receipt of the
is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary decision unless a petition for reconsideration is seasonably filed, which petition
course of law x x x." shall be decided within fifteen days. Notice of the appeal shall be filed with the

13
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

disciplining office, which shall forward the records of the case, together with the after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration
notice of appeal, to the appellate authority within fifteen days from filing of the or an appeal and no such pleading has been filed.
notice of appeal, with its comment, if any. The notice of appeal shall specifically
state the date of the decision appealed from and the date of receipt thereof. It The COA promulgated rules of procedure for its agency, which include rules for
shall also specifically set forth clearly the grounds relied upon for excepting from disciplinary and administrative cases involving officers and employees of COA.
the decision. Sections 1 and 10 of Rule XIV on Administrative Cases of the 2009 Revised
Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit state:
(2) A petition for reconsideration shall be based only on any of the following
grounds: (a) new evidence has been discovered which materially affects the Section 1. Applicability of Civil Service Law and Other Rules. - The procedures
decision rendered; (b) the decision is not supported by the evidence on record; set forth in the pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law, The Omnibus Rules
or (c) error of law or irregularities have been committed which are prejudicial to Implementing Executive Order No. 292 and COA Memorandum No. 76-48 dated
the interest of the respondent: Provided, That only one petition for April 27, 1976, in administrative cases against officers and employees of the
reconsideration shall be entertained. Commission, are hereby adopted and read into these rules.

The Administrative Code of 1987 also gave the Civil Service Commission the Section 10. Appeal. - Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party
power to "[p]rescribe, amend and enforce regulations and rules for carrying into adversely affected by the decision in accordance with the rules prescribed under
effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws." Sections existing Civil Service rules and regulations.
61 and 45 of the 2012 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service echo the Administrative Code of 1987, and read: In the present petition, Galindo and Pinto failed to explain why they filed a
petition for certiorari before this Court instead of an appeal before the Civil
Section 61. Filing. - Subject to Section 45 of this Rule, decisions of heads of Service Commission. Galindo and Pinto also failed to allege and show that the
departments, agencies, provinces, cities, municipalities and other COA acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
instrumentalities imposing a penalty exceeding thirty (30) days suspension or discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A petition for certiorari
fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days salary, may be appealed to the cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The supposed petition for certiorari imputed
Commission within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. In cases errors in the COA's appreciation of facts and evidence presented, which are
the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the proper subjects of an appeal.
Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department head and
then finally to the Commission. All decisions of heads of agencies are There is no question that the case that Galindo and Pinto sought to be reviewed
immediately executory pending appeal before the Commission. The decision is an administrative disciplinary case. We previously ruled in Saligumba v.
imposing the penalty of dismissal by disciplining authorities in departments is Commission on Audit that our power to review is limited to legal issues in
not immediately executory unless confirmed by the Secretary concerned. administrative matters, thus:
However, the Commission may take cognizance of the appeal pending
confirmation of its execution by the Secretary. The petition has to be dismissed for the following reasons:

Section 45. Finality of Decisions. - A decision rendered by the disciplining 1. Our power to review COA decisions refers to money matters and not to
authority whereby a penalty of suspension for not more than thirty (30) days or administrative cases involving the discipline of its personnel.
a fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days' salary is imposed, shall be 2. Even assuming that We have jurisdiction to review decisions on
final, executory and not appealable unless a motion for reconsideration is administrative matters as mentioned above, We cannot do so on factual issues;
seasonably filed. However, the respondent may file an appeal when the issue Our power to review is limited to legal issues. (Emphasis supplied)
raised is violation of due process.

If the penalty imposed is suspension exceeding thirty (30) days, or fine in an

amount exceeding thirty (30) days' salary, the same shall be final and executory

14
 Rule 42-43|APPRAC|JD4401|2018

(13) The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo vs. receipt of denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Constitution, however,
Commission on Audit specifies that the reglementary period for assailing the decisions, orders, or
G.R. No. 185544. January 13, 2015 rulings of the constitutional commissions is thirty (30) days from receipt of the
By: Pangilinan, Gene Alexis decision, order, or ruling. For this reason, a separate rule was enacted in the
Rules of Court.
Doctrine: Ordinarily, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
has a reglementary period of sixty (60) days from receipt of denial of the Section 2 of Rule 64 specifies that “a judgment or final order or resolution of the
motion for reconsideration. The Constitution, however, specifies that the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the
reglementary period for assailing the decisions, orders, or rulings of the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as
constitutional commissions is thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision, hereinafter provided.”
order, or ruling.
The phrase, “except as hereinafter provided,” specifies that any petition for
Facts: In 2001, officers of Clark Development Corporation, a government- certiorari filed under this rule follows the same requisites as those of Rule 65
owned and controlled corporation, approached the law firm of Laguesma except for certain provisions found only in Rule 64. Under this rule, a party may
Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo (petitioner) for its possible assistance in file a petition for review on certiorari within 30 days from notice of the judgment
handling the corporation’s labor cases. Clark Development Corporation sought being assailed. The reglementary period includes the time taken to file the
from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) its approval for motion for reconsideration and is only interrupted once the motion is filed. If the
the engagement of the petitioner as external counsel. motion is denied, the party may file the petition only within the period
remaining from the notice of judgment.
The OGCC approved the engagement of the petitioner. The petitioner
commenced rendering legal services to Clark Development Corporation. Between Rule 64 and Rule 65, the most patent difference between the two is
However, Clark Development Corporation had yet to secure the authorization Rule 64 Section 3 which provides for a special period for the filing of petitions
and clearance from the OGCC or the concurrence of the Commission on Audit for certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC or COA. The period is 30
(COA) of the retainership contract. days from notice of the decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that Rule 65
provides), with the intervening period used for the filing of any motion for
Clark Development Corporation requested the Commission on Audit for reconsideration deductible from the originally-granted 30 days (instead of the
concurrence of the retainership contract it executed with the law firm. The State fresh period of 60 days that Rule 65 provides).
Auditor informed Clark Development Corporation that its request for clearance
could not be acted upon until the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel In this case, petitioner received the decision of the Commission on Audit on
approves the retainership contract with finality. October 16, 2007. It filed a motion for reconsideration on November 6, 2007, or
after 21 days. It received notice of the denial of its motion on November 20,
The Commission on Audit thus disallowed the payment of retainer fees to the 2008. The receipt of this notice gave petitioner nine (9) days, or until November
law firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo for legal services 29, 2008, to file a petition for certiorari. Since November 29, 2008 fell on a
rendered to Clark Development Corporation. Saturday, petitioner could still have filed on the next working day, or on
December 1, 2008. It, however, filed the petition on December 19, 2008, which
The petitioner received the decision of the Commission on Audit on October 16, was well beyond the reglementary period.
2007. It filed a motion for reconsideration on November 6, 2007. It received
notice of the denial of its motion on November 20, 2008. The petitioner then
filed this petition for certiorari on December 19, 2008.

Issue: Whether or not the petition was filed on time.

Held: No. The petition was filed out of time. Ordinarily, a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court has a reglementary period of 60 days from

15