Compendium - Civil Law

 

Stolt Nielsen v. NLRC, 477 SCRA 516, December 13 2005.

Issue: WON Court of Appeals erred in the interpretation of Article 223 of the Labor Code with respect to the posting of an appeal bond as a condition for perfecting an appeal.

 

Facts: Article 223 of the Labor Code states that appeal must be perfected within ten (10) calendar days from the receipt thereof, otherwise the same shall become final and executory. In a judgement involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon proof of payment of the required appeal fee and posting of a cash or surety bond and filing of a memorandum of appeal. In this case, petitioner’s Urgent Motion to Reduce or be Exempted from Filing an Appeal Bond was denied by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), affirmed by Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the requirement of a cash or surety bond for the perfection of an appeal was not satisfied. Petitioner came before the Court with a petition for review under Rule 45 with this issue.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court ruled that the non-compliance on the requirement for perfecting an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgement final and executory.  

 

Doctrine: The party seeking for appeal must comply with the requirements as prescribed by law. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requirements shall not stop the running of prescriptive period.

 

Canton v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 152898, February 12, 2007.

Issue: WON Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition because copies of the complaint, answer, parties’ position papers filed with the Municipal Trial Court and parties’ appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court were not attached, as required under Sec. 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

Facts: Sec. 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure reads: failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition m and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. In the motion for reconsideration, petitioners’ counsel, instead of submitting the pleadings required by CA, continued to assert that “the complaint, or answer filed with the MTC and the parties’ appeal memoranda filed with the RTC are not indispensable to support the allegation.” Petitioners ignored the CA directive and asserted their own interpretation of the Rules of Court thus this petition for review on certiorari.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court ruled that the petitioners’ thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure commensurate the forfeiture of the privilege for appeal. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice.   

 

Doctrine: Right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that may only be exercised in accordance with the provision of the law. Failure to comply with the law’s requirements results in the forfeiture of this right.

 

 

Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig (AISFB)-ALU v. Court of Appeals, August 22, 2005.

 

Issue: WON petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy in this case.

 

Facts: The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages, etc. following the closure of The Company Guard Force, a company for hired security guards. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and declared that under the law, the consequent termination of the security guards were valid and legal. Thereby petitioners AISFB-ALU, the labor organization, filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 

 

Ruling: Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the court before recourse was made to special civil action under Rule 65 was a procedural flaw.  The general rule is that the remedy to obtain reversal or modification of judgement on the merits is appeal. This is true even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of facts or of law set out in the decision.

 

Doctrine: The remedy for an assailed decision is a motion for reconsideration.

 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp., October 16, 2006.

Issue: WON the petition for review on the decision of the Court of Appeals has merit

 

Facts: Court of Tax Appeal partially granted the company’s, Mirant Pagbilao Corporation’s (MPC) claim for tax refund and ordered the BIR Commissioner to issue a tax credit certificate representing the input taxes paid on capital goods for certain period. A Motion for Reconsideration was denied by CTA. BIR Commissioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review, however the arguments noted here were never raised before the CTA. CA dismissed the petition, thereby this Petition for Review under Rule 45 before the Court.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court denied the petition. The issues on whether MPC is a public utility and whether it is subject to franchise tax and not VAT were not raised in the Petition for Review before the CA. A party may not fundamentally change the nature of the issue on appeal.

 

Doctrine: Defenses not pleaded in the answer may not be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court has no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in issue.

 

Dy vs. National Labor Relations Commission, October 27, 1986.

 

Issue: WON the National Labor Relations Commission’s decision to dismiss the appeal is tenable.

 

Facts: Private respondent, Carlito H, Vailoces, bank manager filed a complaint for illegal dismissal ang damages with the Ministry of Labor and Employment against Lorenzo Dy, et. al. Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Vailoces and so Dy appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC however simply dismissed the appeal for having been filed late. Thereby, this Petition for Review before the Court invoking that the NLRC ruling was an arbitrary deprivation of the right to appeal through unreasonable adherence to procedural technicality.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the Resolution of the NLRC because they were rendered without jurisdiction. It is the SEC and not the NLRC that has jurisdiction over dispute involving termination of a bank manager as a result of his non-re-election, as prescribed in the Bank’s By-laws. Failure to invoke a new ground of want of jurisdiction should not prevent the Court to take up such issue in the petition.

 

Doctrine: The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.

 

Comilang v Burcena, February 13, 2006.

Issue: WON the credibility of the witness, as error not assigned, warrants the re-examination of the CA’s decision.

 

Facts: Section 8, Rule 51 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:-- Question that may be decided – No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the validity of the judgement appealed from of the proceedings therein will be considered, unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors. In this case, petitioner invoked that the CA has the judicial prerogative to rule on matters not assigned as errors in an appeal if necessary to the just resolution of the case.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court did not find compelling reasons necessitating a re-examination or reversal of the CA’s decision. The Court did not alter the findings of the RTC on the credibility of witnesses because the Court considered the trial courts as having superior advantage in ascertaining the truth as they have the opportunity to observe the witnesses while testifying.

 

Doctrine: The Rules of Court recognize the broad discretionary power of the appellate court to consider issues not raised but would give life and meaning to the law.

 

Regalado v. Go, February 6, 2007.

Issue: WON the CA disregarded the mandatory provision of Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

Facts: Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules states How proceedings commenced. – In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars… said petition should be docketed, heard and decided separately. In this case, respondent Go initiated an indirect contempt proceeding through a Manifestation with Omnibous Motion which was unverified and without any supporting particulars and documents. CA issued a Resolution requiring petitioner Atty. Regalado to show cause. Petitioner complied. CA found petitioner Atty. Regalado guilty of indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA for lack of merit. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court granted the petition and declared indirect contempt proceedings before the Court of Appeals as null and void. Issues on the merits of the contempt were then moot and academic. According to the provision of the Rules of Court, a verified petition in initiating an indirect contempt proceeding is a mandatory requirement.

 

Doctrine: Mere motion, without complying with the requirements for initiatory pleading is no longer tolerated by the Court.

 

Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, November 29, 2000

 

Issue: WON the appellate docket fees were considered duly paid pursuant to Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

 

Facts: Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules states Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. – …the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgement or final order appealed from the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. In this case, the appellate docket fees were in the form of two postal money orders which were received by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court which rendered the judgement appealed from, but one was addressed to the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals and the other to the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court. This error let to the dismissal of the complaint for failure to pay the docket fees. Petitioners sought relief but were denied by the CA. Hence this petition for certiorari.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court granted the petition. The Clerk of Court of the RTC of Aklan was ordered to transmit the records to the CA in accordance with Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The delivery of the appellate docket fees to the proper Clerk of Court should be interpreted to mean as the proper payment. The postal money order addressed to the clerks of CA and SC are minor technicalities which if treated stringently will run counter to the spirit of the Rules to thwart the ends of justice.

 

Doctrine: The Court allows filling of an appeal, despite procedural defects, if it serves the demands of justice.

 

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, July 5, 1996.

 

Issue: WON the petition is valid for review by the Supreme Court.

 

Facts: Section 2a, Rule 41 of the Rule states: The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing the notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgement or final order appealed from and serving a copy upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where law.. requires. In this case, the issue arises from the alleged encroachment and the demand to receive unpaid rentals. The ruling on the issue on encroachment determines the issue on rental. The two are from the same cause of action and therefore do not require multiple appeal.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. The issues raised before the Court in the appeal were not purely questions of law. The court did not find reversible error in the CA decision under review. According to the law, appeals under Rule 41 from the RTC to the CA involving questions of fact shall be dismissed.

 

Doctrine: Cases should be elevated to the Supreme Court if only questions of law are raised.

 

The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. Court of Appeals, April 14, 2008.

Issue: WON the CA’s resolution granting the motion of UFC, despite UFC’s delay, was tenable.

 

Facts: A Complaint for specific performance of contract with damages was filed by petitioner against respondents Unified Field Corporation (UFC), et. al. RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. Respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals however, respondents failed to file their brief within the reglementary period, which then was the basis for CA to dismiss the case. This was pursuant to Section 1, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. It was in the respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration when the CA resolves to grant the motion and ordered the respondent to file its brief within the period prescribed by the Rules. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied. Hence this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court granted the petition and accordingly annulled and set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court did not find any sufficient and compelling reason to justify the leniency of UFC. The Court find that the delay in filing, 57 days after the expiration of the period was unreasonably long.

 

Doctrine: Relaxation on the Rules on pleadings to relieve the party of an injustice must be very convincing. And in case of delay, the lapse must be within a reasonable period.

 

Beatingo v Gasis, February 9, 2011

 

Issue: WON petitioner’s argument on the cause of delay have merit.

 

Facts: Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court provides: Appellant’s Brief: -- It shall be the duty of the appellant to file with the court, within 45 days, oral and documentary… CA required petitioner to file the Appellant’s Brief. However instead of filing the required brief, petitioner requested for additional time to prepare “due to pressure of work in equally important cases, plus court appearances, preparation of memoranda, conference with other clients.” CA granted the request and stated that that was the maximum extension. Petitioner again filed two motions for extension, for a total of 60 days. This time, CA denied the motion and eventually dismissed the appeal. Thus, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

 

Ruling: Supreme Court did not find merit in the petitioner’s argument. The petitioner’s counsel was negligent in failing to file the required brief not only within 45 days from receipt of the notice but also within the extended period of 90 days granted by CA. The Court find the excuse unacceptable.

 

Doctrine: A lawyer is bound to protect his client’s interest with utmost diligence. Failure to file brief constitutes inexcusable negligence, moreso, if the delay results to the dismissal of the case.

 

h. Rule 45 vs Rule 65; Question of Law v. Question of Fact

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

MERLYN MERCADERA through her Attorney-in-Fact,

EVELYN M. OGA, respondent.

Issue: WON there is merit in the OSG’s petition under Rule 45 assailing that the CA erred in granting the change in respondent’s name.

Facts:

i.                     Merlyn Mercadera sought the correction of her given name as it appeared in her Certificate of Live Birth – from Marilyn to Merilyn before the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City pursuant to RA 9048.

ii.                    Under RA 9048, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is lodged with administrative officers which is excluded in the coverage of Rule 103, rather within the scope of Rule 108.

iii.                  The Office of the Local Civil Registrar refused to effect the correction, following RA 9048 which require a Court Order before any change is made. Mercadera was then constrained to file a Petition For Correction of Some Entries as Appearing in the Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 before the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City.

iv.                  RTC granted the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General interposed an appeal praying for reversal arguing that the RTC erred in granting the correction because the petition should have been filed under Rule 103 and not Rule 108; and in admitting the photocopies of documentary evidence and hearsay testimony. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.

v.                    OSG availed of Rule 45 as remedy assailing that the CA erred on questions of law in granting the change in respondents name under Rule 103 and in considering secondary evidence.

Ruling: Supreme Court found merit in the petition as both questions raised were pure questions of law. In fact, the manner in which the issues were worded were straightforward that those are questions of law.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN GRANTING THE CHANGE IN RESPONDENTS NAME UNDER RULE 103.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN CONSIDERING SECONDARY EVIDENCE.

In the Court’s review, it held that the CA did not err in granting the change of name. The “change of name” contemplated under Article 376 and Rule 103 must not be confused with Article 412 and Rule 108. A change of name under Rule 103 can be granted only on grounds provided by law. However, not all change of names are confined under Rule 103. Corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108. Here, the change from “MARILYN” to “MERLYN” is a correction of a harmless error which may be set right under Rule 108. The substantive law sought to be implemented by Rule 108 allows for the correction of clerical errors and not those affecting the status and rights of a person. Anent the RTC’s error in admitting the secondary evidence, the Court said that considering that the OSG did not oppose the motion to present its evidence when it had the opportunity to do so, OSG can no longer complain that the proceeding in the lower court was procedurally defective.

Doctrine: As a general rule, Rule 45 applies for appeals on decisions made by the CA on pure questions of law.

 

ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., petitioner, vs. SIMON ENTERPRISES, INC., respondent.

Issue: WON the Court may entertain ATI’s petition for review on certiorari

Facts:

i.                     An export company loaded tons of US Soybean Meal in bulk for delivery to the Port of Manila to respondent Simon Enterprises Inc., as consignee.

ii.                   When the vessel arrived in Manila, the shipment was discharged to the receiving barges of petitioner Asian Terminals Inc., the arrastre operator.

iii.                 Respondent filed against petitioner ATI and the carrier a claim for the shortage of 199.863 metric tons, estimated to be worth US$79,848.86 or P2,100,025.00.

iv.                 RTC rendered a decision holding petitioner ATI and its co-defendants solidarily liable to respondent for damages arising from the shortage. CA affirmed. Motion for consideration was filed and was denied.

v.                    ATI availed of Rule 45 as remedy assailing that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the trial court.

Ruling: Supreme Court found justification to warrant the review under an exceptional circumstance that the CA misapprehended the facts of the case. First, there was no competent evidence to prove that the shipment actually weighted 3,300 metric tons from the point of origin therefore failing to prove that the shipment suffered actual shortage. Second, the shortage, if any, may have been due to the inherent nature of the soyabean shipment and had a moisture content of 12.5% which may have been lost during transit. Third, there was no proven negligence on the part of ATI during the discharging operations and that the weighing methods which Simon Enterprises relied upon to establish shortage was inaccurate. The Court held that the respondent cannot fairly claim damages against ATI considering that it was not able to establish conclusively that there was shortage given these factual issues.

Doctrine: As an exception, Supreme Court take into its jurisdiction petition for review on certiorari that is not a pure question of law if the judgement sought to be reviewed was based on a misapprehension of facts by the lower court.

 

LIZA L. MAZA, SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, and RAFAEL V. MARIANO, petitioners, vs. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, Branch 40, FLORO F. FLORENDO, in his capacity as Officer-in Charge Provincial Prosecutor, ANTONIO LL. LAPUS, JR., EDISON V. RAFANAN, and EDDIE C. GUTIERREZ, in their capacity as members of the panel of investigating prosecutors, and RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Justice, respondents.

 

Issue: WON the Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy

Facts:

i.                     Petitioners Liza Maza (Gabriela Rep), Saturnino Ocampo and Teodoro Casino (Bayan Muna Rep) and Rafael Mariano (Anakpawis Rep) were accused to have conspired, planned and implemented the killing of AKBAYAN Party-List organizers and supporter.

ii.                   Subpoena was issued requiring petitioners to testify at the hearing. Petitioners filed a Special Appearance with Motion to Quash Complaint/Subpoena and to Expunge Supporting Affidavits. They urge that the Provincial Prosecution had no jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation since there is no valid complaint and that the subpoena issued against them was patently defective amounting to denial of their rights to due process.

iii.                 Informations for murder however were filed, raffled to RTC of Palayan City presided by Judge Turla. Petitioners filed for a motion for judicial determination of probable cause and if no probable cause existed, a dismissal of the case. Judge Turla denied the petition and remanded the case to the office of the provincial prosecutor for further investigation.

iv.                 This prompted the petitioners to take the case directly to the Supreme Court. The remedy resorted was a Special Civil Action under Rule 65.

Ruling: Yes, Rule 65 was the proper remedy. Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction because it found compelling circumstance which warrants the exercise of its jurisdiction over the case. At the time the petition was filed, petitioners were incumbent party-list representatives. The possibility of their arrest and incarceration should the assailed Orders be affirmed would affect their representation of their constituents in Congress. SC did not find merit to respondent’s contention invoking the principle of hierarchy of courts that petitioners should have filed their petition before the CA since CA exercises original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition.  SC reiterated that it has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition. In this case, petitioners raised eight grounds why the Court must hear the case. SC states that not all exceptions must occur at the same time to justify direct resort to Supreme Court.

Doctrine: As an exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, direct resort to Supreme Court may be allowed by the Court under compelling circumstances to justify the resort to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of certiorari.

 

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. HONORIO E. GUANLAO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 56, TRAYELLER KIDS INC., CELY L. GABALDON-CO and JEANNIE L. LUGMOC, respondents

 

Issue: WON the Supreme Court may proceed with the Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 barring procedural defect. 

Facts:

i.                     The case is from a complaint for collection of sum of money filed by PBCOM against private respondents before the RTC of Makati. RTC ordered PBCOM to pay additional docket fees within 15 days which PBCOM complied with on time, however it filed its Compliance with the Regional Trial Court outside the 15-day period. The RTC dismissed the complaint.

ii.                    PBCOM filed a motion for reconsideration presenting the OR as evidence of timely payment of docket fee. RTC dismissed.

iii.                  PBCOM filed a Notice of Appeal. RTC denied the Notice of Appeal on the ground that it is not a proper remedy.

iv.                  Without filing a motion for reconsideration with the RTC, PBCOM filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals. CA affirmed the RTC.

v.                    PBCOM filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA but was denied for being filed 1-day late. Hence the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed by PBCOM seeking to reverse the CA decision and to grant due course to the Notice of Appeal.

 

Ruling: SC noted that PBCOM availed of the wrong mode of appeal in bringing the case before the Court. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy. SC held that the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 65 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Ruled 65. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions , final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which would be  but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. However, under exceptional circumstances, as when stringent application of the rules will result in manifest injustice, the Court may set aside technicalities and proceed with the appeal.

Doctrine: Under exceptional persuasive reasons, the Rules may be relaxed to relive a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.

 

ARTURO G. MACKAY, petitioner, vs. HON. ADORACION G. ANGELES, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 125, Caloocan City, and ANTONIO G. MACKAY, respondents.

Issue: WON the trial court act with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate assumption into office of Antonio before the perfection of an appeal from the order

Facts:

i.                     Petitioner Arturo Mackay was appointed as regular administrator of the intestate estate of deceased Eufrocina Mackay. Arturo has not submitted the requisite inventory of estate assets and liabilities nor had paid the taxes due on the estate. This delay (of nearly 24 months) prompted Antonio Mackay to file an urgent motion for the removal of petitioner as regular administrator.

ii.                   Petitioner failed to attend any of the scheduled date of hearing thereby Judge Angeles issued an Order relieving Arturo as administrator and appointing Antonio as his substitute.

iii.                 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied for utter lack of merit. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a record on appeal however, the RTC had already issued letters of administration in favor of Antonio.

iv.                 Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition arguing that the Order appointing private respondent as administrator having been appealed, the same cannot be immediately executed by granting letter of administration to Antonio.

v.                   CA denied the application for issuance of TRO, hence this petition for review on certiorari.

Ruling: SC held that the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate assumption into office of one before the perfection of an appeal because there were sufficient reason to order execution pending appeal. Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court allow discretionary execution where special reasons or circumstances exist. Here, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of public respondent granting discretionary execution on the ground that the estate of Eufrocina Mackay would be left without an administrator and that the prompt settlement of the estate had already been unduly delayed. As it is the duty of trial courts in which cases are pending for the settlement of estates to expedite the proceedings, and considering further that the trial court is expressly authorized by the Rules of Court to order execution pending appeal, SC find no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s actuations. The Court further held, in relation to the assigned error that the CA gravely abuse its discretion on resolving issues which are proper subject of appeal and not raised in the petition, the SC reiterated that in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 only errors of law may be raised. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 should be distinguished from certiorari as an original action under Rule 65. In an appeal by certiorari, the petition is based on questions of law which the appellant desires the appellate court to resolve. In certiorari as an original action, the only question that may be raised is whether or not the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

 

Doctrine: After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court. Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.

 

TERESITA G. FABIAN, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman; HON. JESUS F. GUERRERO, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon; and NESTOR V. AGUSTIN, respondents.

 

Issue:

Judgement by Office of the Ombudsman, criminal in nature. Resort to Rule 65 if criminal in nature because it is already grave abuse of Ombudsman’s discretion

 

 

 

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BIENVENIDO ARICAYOS, respondents.

 

Decisions of DOLE, NLRC as a quasi judicial body – result to Rule 65