Nature of Appellate Review
Appeal is the continuation of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding in a higher tribunal for the correction of errors of judgment committed by the tribunal that rendered the assailed judgment, final order, award, or resolution. It is not a natural right or a component of due process in every case, but a statutory privilege that must be exercised only in the manner and within the period fixed by the Constitution, statutes, and the Rules of Court.
The mode of appeal is not chosen by the preference of the litigant. It is determined by the tribunal that rendered the decision, the capacity in which that tribunal acted, the character of the order sought to be reviewed, the nature of the issues raised, and any special law governing the subject matter.
Appellate review corrects errors of judgment, while certiorari in the strict remedial sense corrects errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This distinction is essential because Rule 45 uses the phrase appeal by certiorari as a mode of appeal, while Rule 65 certiorari is an original special civil action and not a substitute for a lost appeal.
Final Judgment Rule
As a general rule, only a judgment or final order may be appealed. A judgment or order is final when it completely disposes of the case, leaves nothing more for the court to do with respect to the merits, and determines the rights of the parties in such a way that execution may follow after finality.
An interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case and ordinarily cannot be appealed. The usual remedy against an interlocutory order is to proceed with the case and assign the error on appeal from the final judgment, unless the order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The policy against piecemeal appeals preserves orderly procedure, prevents delay, and avoids successive reviews of the same case before final adjudication. Where the rules allow multiple appeals, as in certain special proceedings or cases involving several distinct claims, the record on appeal becomes necessary because the trial court must retain the original record to continue resolving the remaining matters.
Classification of Issues
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns what the law is on a given set of facts. A question of fact exists when the doubt concerns the truth, falsity, existence, or non-existence of alleged facts. A mixed question of fact and law exists when the legal effect of facts is in issue and the facts themselves remain disputed or require evaluation of evidence.
The classification of issues controls the reviewing court. Appeals involving questions of fact, or mixed questions of fact and law, generally go to the Court of Appeals when the Rules so provide. Appeals raising only questions of law are generally brought to the Supreme Court through Rule 45, unless a special law or rule provides a different route.
The Supreme Court is generally not a trier of facts. Factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are ordinarily conclusive, subject only to recognized exceptional situations such as conflicting findings, findings grounded on speculation, material facts overlooked, or conclusions plainly unsupported by the record.
Principal Modes of Appeal and Review
The Rules of Court provide several distinct appellate modes. Each mode has its own office, reviewing court, period, form, and effect on the judgment or award under review.
| Judgment or Order Reviewed | Mode | Reviewing Tribunal | Basic Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decision of a Municipal Trial Court or first-level court | Ordinary appeal under Rule 40 | Regional Trial Court | Review of judgments originally rendered by first-level courts. |
| Decision of a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of original jurisdiction | Ordinary appeal under Rule 41, or Rule 45 if only questions of law are raised | Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, as the case may be | Review of final judgments of second-level courts acting as trial courts. |
| Decision of a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction | Petition for review under Rule 42 | Court of Appeals | Discretionary review of RTC decisions rendered on appeal from first-level courts. |
| Final order or resolution of a quasi-judicial agency covered by the rule | Petition for review under Rule 43 | Court of Appeals | Review of administrative adjudications in the exercise of quasi-judicial power. |
| Judgment, final order, or resolution of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, or other tribunal when review by the Supreme Court is authorized | Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 | Supreme Court | Discretionary review generally confined to questions of law. |
| Judgment, final order, or resolution of the Commission on Elections or Commission on Audit | Petition under Rule 64, applying Rule 65 suppletorily | Supreme Court | Constitutional certiorari review for grave abuse of discretion. |
Rule 43 is the general mode for judicial review of many quasi-judicial agencies, but it yields to special statutes and specific procedural rules. Tax review follows the governing law on the Court of Tax Appeals; decisions of the CTA en banc are reviewed by the Supreme Court through Rule 45, while the historical reference to the CTA in Rule 43 must be read with later special legislation.
Ordinary Appeal and Petition-Based Review
An ordinary appeal is perfected by a notice of appeal, or by a record on appeal where required. The notice of appeal is a simple written manifestation that the party is appealing from the judgment or final order, while the record on appeal sets out the material portions of the record necessary for the appellate court to understand the issues without depriving the trial court of the original record.
A petition for review is more exacting than a notice of appeal because it asks the appellate court to take cognizance of the case through a verified pleading that states the material dates, issues, errors, arguments, and supporting record. In petition-based review, failure to show a prima facie reversible error may lead to outright denial even before the adverse party is required to comment.
Rule 42 and Rule 43 petitions are not mere notices of appeal. They are pleadings that must persuade the Court of Appeals that the case deserves review, and the appellate court may deny due course when the petition is defective, late, unsupported by material portions of the record, or plainly without merit.
Rule 45 is also petition-based, but its ordinary scope is narrower because it generally reaches only questions of law. A Rule 45 petition does not give the parties another trial on facts; it calls on the Supreme Court to determine whether the lower court or tribunal correctly applied the law to facts already settled by the record.
Perfection of Appeal
Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory because it is the act that transfers the case to the authority of the appellate court in the manner allowed by law. A late appeal generally leaves the judgment final and executory, and the appellate court acquires no power to review the merits except in the narrow situations where relaxation of the rules is justified by compelling reasons and substantial justice.
The period to appeal generally runs from notice of the judgment or final order. A timely and authorized motion for new trial or reconsideration affects the running of the period according to the governing rule; prohibited, defective, or second motions do not suspend the period unless the rules or the court validly allow them.
The fresh period rule gives a party a new period to appeal from receipt of the order denying a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration in ordinary civil appeals and in the petition modes where the doctrine applies. Rule 64 follows a distinct constitutional and procedural design: the petition must be filed within the special thirty-day period, and an allowed motion for reconsideration interrupts the period only under the rule governing that mode.
A notice of appeal is generally not extendible because it is a simple act within the control of the party. Petitions for review may be extended only when the governing rule permits extension, the motion is filed before the expiration of the original period, the required fees are paid, and the appellate court grants the extension.
Payment of docket and other lawful fees within the required period is part of the proper invocation of appellate jurisdiction in petition-based review. Substantial compliance may be considered only where the lapse does not impair jurisdictional requirements, prejudice the adverse party, or defeat the orderly administration of justice.
Effect of Perfection
Once an appeal is perfected in due time and the period to appeal has expired for the other parties, jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal passes to the appellate court. The trial court loses authority to modify the judgment on the merits, but it retains limited residual powers before transmittal of the original record or record on appeal.
Residual jurisdiction allows the trial court to act on matters that do not disturb the issues on appeal, such as preserving the rights of the parties, approving compromises, permitting appeal by an indigent litigant, allowing withdrawal of the appeal, or ordering execution pending appeal when the rules and circumstances justify it.
An ordinary appeal generally prevents finality of the judgment as to the appealing party while the appeal remains pending. By contrast, certain petition modes and special reviews do not automatically stay the execution or implementation of the challenged award or order unless the appellate court issues a specific injunctive or stay order, or the governing law provides otherwise.
A party who does not appeal is ordinarily bound by the judgment and cannot obtain affirmative relief from the appellate court. An exception may exist when the judgment is indivisible, the relief granted to the appealing party necessarily affects the non-appealing party, or the interests of justice require consistent treatment of parties similarly situated on the same legal issue.
Scope of Appellate Review
The appellate court ordinarily reviews only the errors assigned and properly argued, because appeal is not an opportunity to relitigate the entire case without defined issues. Nevertheless, the court may consider matters closely related to assigned errors, questions necessary to a complete determination of the case, jurisdictional issues, plain errors affecting substantial rights, and matters apparent from the record that must be resolved to render substantial justice.
Issues, defenses, and theories not raised in the trial court or tribunal are generally barred on appeal. This rule rests on fairness to the adverse party and respect for the role of the tribunal of origin, which must first be given the opportunity to pass upon the matter.
Appellate courts review the record, not new evidence. New factual matters are generally inadmissible on appeal, subject to exceptional procedural mechanisms allowed by the rules, such as remand, reception of evidence in special circumstances, or consideration of matters of judicial notice.
The reviewing court may affirm, reverse, modify, or set aside the judgment, or remand the case for further proceedings. Remand is proper when material factual issues remain unresolved, when the record is insufficient for final adjudication, or when the tribunal of origin must first exercise a discretion committed to it by law.
Dismissal and Wrong Mode
An appeal or petition may be dismissed for lateness, lack of jurisdiction, wrong mode, appeal from a non-appealable order, nonpayment of required fees, defective verification or certification when not cured, failure to attach material portions of the record, forum shopping, failure to comply with lawful orders, or patent absence of reversible error.
The wrong mode of appeal is generally fatal because each mode invokes a different jurisdictional path and imposes different requirements. The courts may, in exceptional cases, treat a wrongly filed remedy as the proper one when the allegations, timeliness, equities, and interests of justice clearly warrant such treatment, but liberality is not a license to disregard the rules.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot revive a lost appeal, correct mere errors of judgment, or replace a remedy that was adequate but not used. It may be available despite the existence of appeal only when appeal is not plain, speedy, or adequate, or when the assailed act is so tainted with jurisdictional error that ordinary review would not provide meaningful relief.
Rule 64 review of Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit rulings is structurally closer to certiorari than to ordinary appeal. The Supreme Court does not review such rulings as a general appellate court on facts and law; it determines whether the constitutional commission acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Hierarchy and Exclusivity
The hierarchy of courts requires litigants to use the reviewing court designated by the Rules and special laws. Direct resort to the Supreme Court is allowed only when the Rules, the Constitution, or a statute authorizes it, or when exceptional circumstances justify immediate intervention.
Where the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction, a party cannot bypass it by styling the pleading as a petition for certiorari or by raising factual issues before the Supreme Court. Where only questions of law are involved and the Rules direct review by Rule 45, filing in the Court of Appeals may be an improper mode that does not necessarily toll the period for proper review.
The exclusivity of a mode is especially important in administrative and constitutional commission cases. Decisions of quasi-judicial agencies covered by Rule 43 are generally reviewed by the Court of Appeals, while judgments or final orders of the Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit are reviewed by the Supreme Court under Rule 64 because the Constitution itself fixes the reviewing tribunal and mode.
Operational Effect of the Modes
The modes of appeal and review create a procedural map for post-judgment remedies. Rule 40 moves first-level court judgments to the RTC; Rule 41 moves RTC judgments rendered in original jurisdiction to the CA, except pure questions of law that go to the Supreme Court; Rule 42 moves RTC appellate judgments to the CA through petition; Rule 43 moves covered quasi-judicial adjudications to the CA; Rule 45 brings authorized legal questions to the Supreme Court; and Rule 64 brings COMELEC and COA rulings to the Supreme Court for grave abuse review.
Correct use of the mode preserves the reviewing court's jurisdiction, prevents premature finality, and identifies the proper scope of review. Incorrect use may cause dismissal and finality of the judgment, because the right to appeal exists only within the limits of the procedure that creates it.