Appellate remedies; notes.

APPELLATE PRACTICE
(Based on the MCLE lectures of my friend Court of Appeals Associate Justice Magdangal de Leon, Past
Chairman, Las Pinas City Bar Association).

Rules

Rules 40-56 -- civil actions

Rule 122-125 -- criminal actions

See also: Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, effective Aug. 14,
1981); PD 1606 (law creating Sandiganbayan), amended by RA 7975 and RA 8249; Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution; Adm. Code of 1987.

Purpose

To review “errors of judgment” committed by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
persons of the parties.
Contradistinguish: Rule 65 (special civil action for CPM) – “errors of jurisdiction”.

Possibilities:
o modify or reverse the judgment or final order, or
o remand the case to the court of origin if it finds that
further proceedings are necessary.

Not Matter of Right

 Mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law
granting that right.

 When judgments or final orders of trial courts which can be appealed as a matter of right:

 Judgments or final orders of the MTC, RTC and Family Court in civil cases and special proceedings (Sec.
1, Rule 41; Sec. 1, Rule 109).

 Judgments of conviction rendered by a trial court, provided accused not placed in double jeopardy (Sec. 1,
Rule 122).

 As a general rule, appeal from a decision rendered by a court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is
not a matter of right (appeal via “petition for review” or appeal via “petition for review on certiorari”).

 Discretionary appeal – one which a reviewing court may or may not allow. Example: Sec. 6, Rule 45
(“petition for review on certiorari” or “appeal by certiorari”) – review not a matter of right but of sound
judicial discretion; will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor.
* Also, see Sec. 4, Rule 42 and Sec. 8. Rule 43.

Proper Remedy

 Policy now strictly enforced that wrong remedy will be quickly rejected and dismissed (SC Circular No. 2-00
dated March 19, 1990 based on Murillo vs. Consul, Undk. No. 9748, Feb. 27, 1990).
  Election of proper remedy depends on whether or not judgment or final order has become final and
unappealable.

A. Not Yet Final and Unappealable

1. Ordinary Appeal

 notice of appeal within period specified (15 days from receipt of decision or order/resolution denying a
motion for reconsideration [Neypes doctrine]).
 upon errors or questions of fact and law
 applies to judgments or final orders
 of MTC to RTC in civil cases (Rule 40)
 of RTC to CA in civil cases (Rule 41)
 of RTC to SB involving public officers and employees (PD 1606, am. by RA 8249)
 of RTC to CA in criminal cases (Rules 122 & 124, as am. by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, Oct. 15, 2004)

2. Petition for Review

 to CA
 from RTC - if judgment to be appealed from is rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
(Rule 42)
 from quasi-judicial agency (Rule 43)

3. Petition for Review on Certiorari

 to SC under Rule 45
 upon pure questions of law
 from RTC, CA or SB

B. Final and Unappealable

1. Petition for CPM (orig. special civil action under

Rule 65)

o ground: judgment rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction

2. Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38

o grounds: fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence (FAME)

3. Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47

o grounds: extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction

Improper Appeal

An appeal may be dismissed on the ground that it is improper. --

 Appeal under Rule 41 taken from RTC to CA raising only pure questions of law (Sec. 2, Rule 50).

(a) Trial court without authority to dismiss an appeal by notice of appeal on the ground that issues involved only
questions of law (Kho vs. Camacho, 204 SCRA 150; PNB vs. Judge Romillo, Jr., 130 SCRA 320).
(b) Appeal by certiorari from RTC to SC raising only questions of fact may be referred by SC to CA for decision
or appropriate action (Sec. 6, Rule 56).

 Appeal from appellate judgment of RTC taken by notice of

appeal to CA – proper mode is petition for review under
Rule 42.

An erroneous appeal does not always result in its dismissal.

o Interest of substantial justice (People vs. Barrera, 262 SCRA 63).

o Lapse of “slight nature” and causes no prejudice to any party (People vs. Omotoy, 267 SCRA
143).

Subject to Appeal

1. Order denying motion for new trial or reconsideration

2. Order denying petition for relief or similar motion seeking relief from judgment.
3. Interlocutory order
4. Order disallowing or denying an appeal
5. Order denying motion to set aside judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud,
mistake or duress or any other ground vitiating consent.
6. Order of execution
7. Judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims,
cross claims, and third party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an
appeal therefrom.
8. Order dismissing an action without prejudice.

ORDINARY APPEAL – Rules 40 and 41

Rule 40 – MTC to RTC

Rule 41 – RTC to CA

Similarities:

1. Same period to appeal – 15 days/30 days

2. How appeal taken - notice of appeal/notice of appeal plus record on appeal; appellant has a new period
of 15 days after denial of motion for reconsideration or new trial (Neypez ruling).
3. Same manner of perfection (Sec. 9, Rule 41).
4. Residual powers (Sec. 9, Rule 41)
5. Power to dismiss appeal (Sec. 13, Rule 41).

Difference in pleadings to be filed

Rule 40 – memoranda
Rule 41 – briefs

What to file in special cases (under Rule 41) -- In appeals from decisions in certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus  memorandum in lieu of brief (Sec. 10, Rule 44).

Effect of Non-Appeal

General rule: appellate court cannot reverse or modify the trial

court’s judgment involving a party who did not appeal.
 Exceptions:

1. solidarity in obligations (Citytrust Banking Corp. vs. CA (196

SCRA 553; Universal Motors Corp. vs. CA, 205 SCRA 448).
2. interest of justice (Batingal vs. CA, 351 SCRA 60).

PETITION FOR REVIEW – RULES 42 and 43

Rule 42 - petitions for review of decisions of RTC in exercise of

appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by MTC.

[ N.B. Decisions of RTC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in

tax collection cases and criminal cases arising from violations of
NIRC, TCC and other laws administered by BIR and BOC
appealable to CTA within 30 days from receipt of decision under
procedure analogous to that provided under Rule 42 (RA 9282). ]

Rule 43 - petitions for review of decisions, final orders, resolutions of

quasi-judicial agencies such as CSC, SEC, OP, LRA, etc.

Rule 43 covers:

 DAR decisions under RA 6657

 Voluntary arbitrators (Silver Trading Co. vs. A.V.A. Tomas E. Semana, et al., G.R. No. 152456, Apr. 28,
2004)

 Ombudsman resolutions or orders in administrative cases

(Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470)

 Note - Ombudsman resolutions or orders in criminal cases –

petition for certiorari to SC under Rule 65 (Garcia Rueda vs. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 769 )

 Decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of

Immigration (Agus Dwikarna vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 153454,
July 7, 2004)

 Decisions and final orders of commercial courts under RA

8799 (A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, Oct. 15, 2004)

[ N.B. Decisions or rulings of Central Board of Assessment Appeals in exercise of

its appellate jurisdiction appealable
to CTA under procedure analogous to that in Rule 43
(RA 9282). ]

Excluded from Rule 43:

 Judgments and final orders issued under the Labor Code (Sec. 2).

 NLRC decisions (St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494) – petition for certiorari to CA under
Rule 65.
 Decisions of Secretary of Labor (National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, 304 SCRA 407 ) and Director
of BLR (Abbot Laboratories Phils. vs. Abbot Laboratories Employees Union, 323 SCRA 392 ) – petition
for certiorari to CA under Rule 65.

 CTA decisions – petition for review on certirari under Rule 45 (RA 9282).

 Decisions of the DOJ Secretary in petitions for review

- petition for certiorari to CA under Rule 65 (Public Utilities Dept., Olongapo City vs. Guingona, Jr., 365
SCRA 467).

Under Rules 42 and 43 –

 How appeal taken and time for filing – only one motion for reconsideration allowed (Sec. 4, Rule 43).
 Service of copy of petition on lower court and adverse
party serves as notice of appeal
 Perfection of appeal
 Effect of failure to comply with requirements (Sec. 3,
Rule 42; Sec. 7, Rule 43)
 Review discretionary
 may be dismised outright (Sec. 4, Rule 42; Sec. 8, Rule 43)
 may not be given due course (Sec. 6, Rule 42; Sec. 10,Rule 43)
 Pure question of law may be brought to CA (Secs. 2 and 6,
Rule 42; Sec. 3. Rule 43)
 Effect of appeal
 shall stay judgment or final order (Sec. 8, Rule 42)
 shall not stay judgment or final order (Sec. 12, Rule 43)

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI – RULE 45

 How appeal taken and time for filing (Secs. 1 & 2)

 Only questions of law may be raised (Sec. 1)
 Proof of service on lower court and adverse party (Sec. 3)
 Dismissal or denial of petition (Sec. 5)
 When petition given due course (Sec. 6)
 Distinguished from certiorari as a special civil action
 Factual findings of CA binding on SC. There are 11 Exceptions (Remalante vs. Tibe and related cases)

 Exception to Rule 45 as a mode of appeal to SC -- notice of

appeal where CA imposes reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or a lesser penalty (Sec. 13 (c), Rule 124, as
amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC; Mateo doctrine)

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI - RULE 65

 How taken and time for filing (Secs. 1 & 4)

 If involving acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, petition filed in CA (Sec. 4)
 Ground: grave abuse of discretion, etc.
 No appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
 Generally, if appeal is available, certiorari cannot be
resorted to. Appeal and certiorari mutually exclusive and
not alternative or successive.

 Certiorari filed instead of appeal during period

 of appeal did not toll period or prevent judgment
from becoming final (Del Rosario vs Galagot, 166
SCRA 429).
 If remedy of appeal lost due to petitioner’s neglect or
error in choice of remedies, certiorari not substitute or tool to shield petitioner from adverse
effects (Professional Regulations Commission vs. CA,
292 SCRA 155).

Exceptions:

 Where appeal not adequate, or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient (PNB vs. Sayoc, 292 SCRA
365).
 When rigid application will result in manifest failure or miscarriage of justice (Mejares vs. Reyes, 254
SCRA 425).
 Where remedies not incompatible, filing of certiorari not abandonment of appeal. (Appeal is from decision
in main case while certiorari is against order denying motion for new trial [Lansang, Jr. vs. CA,
184 SCRA 230; St. Peter Memorial Park vs. Campos, 63 SCRA 180]).
 In the interest of justice, petition for certiorari considered as petition for review under Rule 45, provided filed
within required period (Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. CA, 334 SCRA 305).

Motion for reconsideration required before certiorari can be filed. Exceptions (Tan, Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan, 292 SCRA 452; Marawi Marantao General Hospital vs. CA, 349 SCRA
321).

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT – RULE 38

 Available only after (a) decision or final order from

which relief is sought has become final and executory, and
(b) loss of the right to appeal.

 Not available where (a) a party has another adequate remedy available him (motion for new trial or
appeal) and (b) he is not prevented from filing such motion or taking the appeal.

 Relief will not be granted when a party’s loss of legal remedy is due to his own negligence or mistaken
mode of procedure.

 Requisites:

(1) FAME - fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, and

(2) presence of good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

 Time for filing petition – within 60 days after learning, and not more than 6 months after judgment or order
entered, or proceeding taken.

Exceptions:

 A few days in excess of 60-day requirement not fatal if petition filed within 6 months from entry of order
(Papa vs. CA, 303 SCRA 600).

 Petition filed beyond required period considered seasonably filed to avoid a miscarriage of justice (Funtilla
vs. CA, 93 SCRA 251).
  Where counsel’s negligence deprived his client of his day in court, it entitled petitioner to file petition fo
relief despite lapse of reglementary period (PHHC vs. Tongco, 12 SCRA 471.

ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT – RULE 47

Cannot be availed of –

 where party had availed of remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and
lost therefrom; or
 where he failed to avail of any such remedy thru his own fault or negligence.

Grounds and period for filing:

(1) Extrinsic fraud – aggrieved party must show that he failed to avail of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedy due to extrinsic fraud done against him.
Fraud must be committed by adverse party.
 Fraud under Rule 38 – precluded petitioner from fully ventilating his case.
 Fraud under Rule 47 - prevented him from resorting to any remedy.
Petition must be filed within four (4) years from discovery.

(2) Lack of jurisdiction - judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void.
Nullity may be shown not only by what appears on the face of the decision but also by the documentary
and testimonial evidence found in the record.
Petition filed before it is barred by laches or estoppel.

Appeal in Criminal Cases

 Appeal by prosecution from dismissal of criminal complaint or information -- where trial court issued
dismissal order before accused was arraigned (Comelec vs. Silva, 285 SCRA 177). No double jeopardy
for lack of arraignment.

 State cannot appeal from judgment of acquittal based on merits of case due to double jeopardy.

 But judgment or order of acquittal may be challenged in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 for
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Ex. denial of due process.

 Appeal from MTC to RTC

Where MTC has jurisdiction over offense (imprisonment not more than 6 yrs.)
How appeal taken and time for filing (Secs. 3 & 6, Rule 122)

 Appeal from RTC to CA

 Original jurisdiction of RTC (Sec. 3 (a), Rule 122)

 Where RTC imposed reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or where lesser penalty imposed for offenses
committed on same occasion, etc. – notice of appeal to CA (Sec. 3 (c), Rule 122, as am. by A.M. No. 00-
5-03-SC pursuant to People vs. Mateo)
 Where RTC imposed death penalty – automatic review by CA (Sec. 3 (d), Rule 122, as am. by A.M. No.
00-5-03-SC, pursuant to People vs. Mateo)

 Appellate jurisdiction of RTC

How appeal taken and time for filing – petition for review under Rule 42 (Sec. 3 (b), Rule 122).

 Appeal from CA and SB to SC

By petition for review under Rule 45
 Exceptions:

 CA – where CA imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty etc. notice of
appeal to SC (Sec. 13 (c), Rule 124, per A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC)

N.B. (1) Where CA finds that death penalty should be imposed, will render judgment but refrain from
making entry of judgment and certify case and elevate entire record to SC for review (Sec. 13 (a), Ibid.)

(2) Where judgment also imposes lesser penalty for offenses committed on same occasion or
arose out of same occurrence that gave rise to more severe offense for which death penalty is imposed,
and accused appeals, appeal shall be included in case certified for review to SC (Sec. 13 (b), Ibid.)

 SB – where SB imposes death, reclusion perpetua or

life imprisonment

 Original jurisdiction
 death  automatic review by SC
 reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or lesser penalty imposed etc. notice of appeal to SC

 Appellate jurisdiction
Where SB finds that death penalty, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment should be imposed, will render
judgment but refrain from making entry of judgment and certify case and elevate entire record to SC for
review (Section 7, PD 1606, as amended, and Rule X, Revised Internal Rules of Sandiganbayan, as
reiterated in SC Resolution dated October 12, 2004).

 Fugitive from justice waives his right to appeal -

 Accused escaped from detention and was tried in absentia (Moslares vs. CA, 291 SCRA 340).
 Accused escaped during pendency of appeal
(People vs. Codilla, 224 SCRA 104).

Exception – where death penalty is imposed, which is automatically appealed (to CA, per Mateo ruling).

 Appeal in election cases – action of public prosecutor authorized to investigate election cases appealable
to Comelec within 10 days from notice (Sec. 34, Comelec Rules of Procedure). Comelec decision or
order reviewable by SC via petition for certiorari within 30 days from promulgation (Rule 37, Ibid.; Rule 64,
Rules of Court).

Here are thirty (30) things to remember when contemplating on filing a petition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

General Rule: The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court
have concurrent jurisdiction when it comes to petitions for certiorari.

Exception: De los Reyes vs. People, 480 SCRA 294 [ 2006] Petition for certiorari
to annul RTC orders filed with the SC should be dismissed. It should have been
filed with the CA, following the principle of hierarchy of courts.

[1] If aggrieved, even a non-party may institute a petition for certiorari.

[2] Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are not available under the Rule
on Summary Procedure (Sec. 19), in a petition for a writ of amparo (Sec. 19, Rule on
the Writ of Amparo), and in a petition for a writ of habeas data (Sec. 19, Rule on the
Writ of Habeas Data), It is also not available in small claims cases (Sec. 14 (g). A.M.
No. 08-8-7-SC).

[3] If involving acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, the petition should be

filed in CA (Sec. 4).

[4] This writ is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions.

[5] Not available as a remedy for the correction of the acts performed by a sheriff
during the execution process, which acts are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial but are
purely ministerial functions. Prohibition is the proper remedy.

[6] Where the function is merely investigative and recommendatory with no power to
pronounce judgment on the controversy, it does not involve the exercise of judicial or
quasi-judicial power. Hence, the acts may not be challenged in a petition for certiorari.

[7] A petition for certiorari must be based on jurisdictional grounds because as long as
the respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the
exercise thereof will amount to nothing than an error of judgment which may be
reviewed by or corrected by appeal.

[8] Since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be directed
against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the
judgment. I think this is the exception rather than the general rule. As a rule,
interlocutory orders must not assailed on certiorari during the pendency of the case
except when the same is patently erroneous or is cause for the miscarriage of justice.

[9] The ground for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

[10] A court's denial of motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory, cannot be

questioned by certiorari; it cannot be subject of appeal, until final order or judgment is
rendered. What this means is that if the court denying motion of A rendered a decision
in favor of A, there is no longer any reason for A to appeal. If, however, the decisions
is adverse to A, he can go up to the next court in hierarchy and attach as one of the
issues to be resolved or assign as one of the errors to be reviewer the denial of the
motion.
 Exceptions: Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition is appropriate:
DBP vs. La Campana Development Corp., 448 SCRA 384 [2005]

[a] When trial court issued the order without or excess of jurisdiction;
[b] When there is patent grave abuse of discretion by the trial court; or,
[c] When appeal would not prove to be a speedy and adequate remedy
as when an appeal would not promptly relieve defendants from
the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order.

[11] A mere denial of an application for an ex parte order for the seizure of evidence
is not indicative of grave abuse of discretion where petitioner failed to point out
specific instances where grave abuse of discretion was allegedly committed and how
the respondent court supposedly exercised its power in a despotic, capricious or
whimsical manner.

[12] A judge gravely abuses his discretion when he extends by twenty (20) days the
72-hour restraining order he initially issued because "in no case shall the total period
of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed 20 day.".

[13] There is grave abuse of discretion where the trial court fails to determine a
factual controversy before issuing a writ of demolition. Failure to do so is to disregard
basic principles of due process because before demolition could be effected, the
parties concerned must be heard.

[14] For the extraordinary writ of certiorari to issue, the petitioner must have no other
recourse, appeal, for example, or any other remedy that makes the reparation of injury
plain, speedy and adequate .

[15] Under the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal, the resolution of
the Secretary of Justice affirming, modifying or reversing the resolution of the
Investigating Prosecutor is final. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a petition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals since there is no more appeal or other remedy
available in the ordinary course of law. To file an appeal with the Court of Appeals
under Rule 43 is an improper remedy.
[16] The CA is empowered under its certiorari jurisdiction to annul and declare void
the questioned resolutions of the Secretary of Justice, but only on two grounds – lack
of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The
power to reverse and set aside partakes of an appellate jurisdiction which the CA does
not have over judgments of the Secretary of Justice exercising quasi-judicial
functions.
[17] A judgment or final order of the Court of Appeals on the petition for certiorari
against the Secretary of Justice is reviewable by the Supreme Court by a petition for
review under Rule 45, not the original action for certiorari under Rule 65. It is
elementary that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 where the remedy of appeal (like
Rule 45) is available precludes certiorari.

[18] Generally, if appeal is available, certiorari cannot be resorted to. Appeal and
certiorari mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.

[19] Certiorari filed instead of appeal during period of appeal did not toll period or
prevent judgment from becoming final.

[20] Certiorari not substitute for lost appeal. Existence and availability of the right to
appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari even if the error ascribed to the court is lack or
excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or law set out
in the decision.

[21] If remedy of appeal lost due to petitioner’s neglect or error in choice of remedies,
certiorari not substitute or tool to shield petitioner from adverse effects.

Exceptions:
[a] When public welfare and advancement of public policy dictate.
[b] When broader interest of justice so requires.
[c] When writs issued are null and void.
[d] When questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
[e] Where appeal is not adequate, speedy and effective.
[f] In any such instances, special civil action of certiorari may be availed of: *** Even
during the pendency of the case or even after judgment, or *** Even when appeal has
been availed of

[22] Availability of appeal does not foreclose recourse to certiorari where appeal not
adequate, or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient.

[23] Rule may be relaxed when rigid application will result in manifest failure or
miscarriage of justice.

[24] Where remedies not incompatible, filing of certiorari not abandonment of appeal.
Appeal is from decision in main case while certiorari is against order denying motion
for new trial.

[25] An appeal from a judgment does not bar a certiorari petition against the order
granting execution pending appeal and the issuance of the writ of execution.

[24] However, a party is not allowed to question a decision on the merits and also
invoke certiorari. Filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and ordinary appeal
under Rule 41 cannot be allowed because one remedy would necessarily cancel each
other.

[25] It is the danger of failure of justice without the writ, not the mere absence of all
legal remedies, that must determine the propriety of certiorari.

[26] In many instances, the Supreme Court has treated a petition for review under
Rule 45 as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, where the subject of the recourse
was one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by a court with grave
abuse or discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction but when the petition
denominated as a Rule 45 petition neither involves any issue of jurisdiction nor a
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals, it should be dismissed
outright.

[27] A prior motion for reconsideration is required before certiorari can be filed.

[28] Although the RTC has the authority to annul final judgments, such authority
pertains only to final judgments rendered by inferior courts and quasi-judicial bodies
of equal ranking with such inferior courts. Given that DARAB decisions are
appealable to the CA, the inevitable conclusion is that the DARAB is a co-equal body
with the RTC and its decisions are beyond the RTC’s control.

[29] Rule 43 refers to appeals from judgments or orders of quasi-judicial agencies in

the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions. On the other hand, Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court specifically governs special civil actions for certiorari, Section 4 of which
provides that if the petition involves acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and
unless otherwise provided by law or the rules, the petition shall be filed in and
cognizable only by the CA.
[30] Cases to read:

Alcaraz. vs. Gonzales. G.R. No. 164715, September 26, 2006

Bermudez vs.Gonzales, 347 SCRA 611 [2000]
Beso vs. Aballe, 326 SCRA 100 [2000]
Buan vs. Matugas, G.R. No. 161179, August 7, 2007
Bugarin vs. Palisoc, G.R. No. 157985, December 2, 2005,476 SCRA 587
China Banking Corporation vs. Asian Construction and Development Corporation,
G.R. No. 158271, April 8, 2008
DBP vs. La Campana Development Corp., 448 SCRA 384 [2005]
De los Reyes vs. People, 480 SCRA 294 [ 2006]
Del Rosario vs. Galagot, 166 SCRA 429
Doran vs. Luczon,G.R.No. 151344, September 26, 2006
Estrera vs. CA, G.R. No. 154235, August 16, 2006
Lansang, Jr. vs. CA, 184 SCRA 230
Mañacop vs. Equitable PCIBank, 468 SCRA 256
Marawi Marantao General Hospital vs. CA, 349 SCRA 321
Mejares vs. Reyes, 254 SCRA 425
Microsoft Corporation vs. Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, 389 SCRA 615
[2002]
Miguel vs. JCT Group, Inc., 458 SCRA 529 [2005]
New Frontier Sugar Corporation vs. RTC of Iloilo, G.R. No. 165001, January 31,
2007
Pamana, Inc. vs. CA, 460 SCRA 133 [2005]
PNB vs. Sayoc, 292 SCRA 365
Professional Regulations Commission vs. CA, 292 SCRA 155
Public Hearing Committee of the Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. SM Prime
Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 170599, September 22, 2010
Seven Brothers Shipping Corp. vs. CA, 246 SCRA 33 [1995]
Spouses Balanguan vs. CA, G. R. No. 174350, August 13, 2008
Springfield Development Corp. vs. Presiding Judge of RTC of Misamis Oriental,
Branch 40, G.R. No. 142628, February 6, 2007
St. Peter Memorial Park vs. Campos, 63 SCRA 180
Tan, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 292 SCRA 452