Sei sulla pagina 1di 90

Rule 42

Petition for Review from the


Regional Trial Court
to the Court of Appeals
Application of Rule 42

Applies to an appeal from the judgment or final


order of the RTC to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the former in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction
What to file?

Verified Petition for Review


Where to File?

Court of Appeals
When to File?

Within 15 days from notice of the

1) Decision (of the RTC) sought to be reviewed:


or

2) Denial of the Motion for New Trial or


Reconsideration
Requirements Upon Filing
Petition for Review
Requirements Upon Filing
Petition for Review

Payment of docket and other lawful fees


Deposit of Php 500.00 for costs
Proof of service of the Petition to the RTC
and the adverse party/parties
Is Extension to File Petition
For Review Allowed?
Is Extension to File Petition For
Review Allowed?

Yes. The Court of Appeals may grant


additional 15 days only within which to file
Petition for Review.
Is a Second Extension to
File Petition for Review
Allowed?
Is a Second Extension to File
Petition for Review Allowed?

General Rule: No.


Exception: For the most compelling reasons,
yes. But extension to file Petition for Review
shall not exceed 15 days.
Requirements for an Extension to
File Petition for Review
Requirements for an Extension to
File Petition for Review

Motion by the Party,


Payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful
fees, and
Deposit for costs,
All done within the 15-day reglementary period
How many copies of the Petition
for Review is to be filed?
How many copies of the Petition
for Review is to be filed?

Seven (7) legible copies


Original copy indicated as such for
the Court of Appeals
What are the Contents of
the Petition for Review?
Contents of the Petition for Review

Full names of the parties to a case. Lower courts


or judges need not be impleaded
Specific material dates showing that the
Petition was filed on time. This is called the
material data rule.
Contents of the Petition for Review

Concise statement of the matters involved, the


issues raised, the specification of errors of fact
or law, or both, allegedly committed by the
RTC, and the reasons or arguments relied upon
for the allowance of the appeal
Contents of the Petition for Review

Clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies


of the judgments or final orders of both lower
courts (MTC and RTC), certified correct by
the Clerk of Court of the RTC
Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping
Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping

A Petition for Review should also accompany a


Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, the
same as an initiatory pleading or complaint.
It is what is referred to as the certification under
oath in the last paragraph of Section 1, Rule
42
Contents of the Certification
of Non-Forum Shopping
Contents of the Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping

That the Petitioner has not commenced any


other action involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal
or agency;
Contents of the Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping

That if there is such other action or proceeding, he must


state the status of the same
That if he should learn that a similar action or proceeding
has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any
other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform
the said courts and other tribunal or agency within 5 days
from knowledge.
Illustrative Case:
San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders vs Ma. Cristina Bayang
GR No. 194702, April 20, 2015
Facts:

Petitioners and respondent entered into a contract to sell


a 60 sq. meter lot in QC. Upon full payment of the
amortizations, respondent demanded the execution of a
Deed of Absolute Sale and the lots Certificate of
Title. The petitioners failed to deliver, prompting the
respondent to file a complaint for specific performance
and damages before the HLURB.
HLURB Arbiter decided in favor of the
respondent. Petitioners appealed to the
HLURB Board of Commissioners, which
denied the appeal and the subsequent MR.
Petitioners then brought the case to the Office
of the President.
The OP dismissed the appeal for having been filed
out of time. Petitioners received the HLURB
decision on 27 July 2005, the date when the 15-
day period of prescription within which to file the
appeal began to run. The petitioners, however,
filed a MR on 10 August 2005, interrupting the
period of appeal by that time, but 14 days had
already elapsed.
Petitioners received the resolution of the OP on
17 April 2006, giving them only until 18 April
2006 to file a notice of appeal to the OP.
Petitioners, however, filed an appeal on 27 April
2006, or 9 days late. Petitioners filed a MR to the
resolution of the OP, arguing the fresh-period
rule enunciated in Neypes vs CA.
The OP denied the MR, holding that the fresh-
period rule only applies to judicial appeals and
not to administrative appeals. Hence, the
petitioners appealed to the CA, which denied
the petition and the MR. The case then
elevated to the SC.
Issue:

Whether or not the 15-day fresh period rule


enunciated in the Neypes vs CA is applicable
to the administrative appeal.
Held:

No. The 15-day fresh period rule only applies


to judicial appeals and not to administrative
appeals. It only applies to appeals under Rule
40, 42, 43, and 45.
The period of appeal in administrative cases is
governed by the Section 1 of Administrative Order
87, series of 1990, which provides that if the motion
for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall
perfect his appeal "during the remainder of the
period of appeal, reckoned from receipt of the
resolution of denial;" whereas if the decision is
reversed, the adverse party has a fresh 15-day
period to perfect his appeal.
Effect of Filing a
Petition for Review
General Rule:

The timely filing of a Petition for Review shall


stay the judgment or final order.
Exceptions:

1) Unless the Court of Appeals, law, or Rules


of Court shall provide otherwise.

2)Civil cases decided under the Rules on


Summary Procedure
Perfection of Appeal
The appeal is deemed perfected as to the
petitioner

1) Upon the timely filing of a Petition for


Review, and

2) The payment of the corresponding docket


and other lawful fees.
When does the RTC lose
Jurisdiction over the case on appeal?
The RTC loses jurisdiction over the case upon
the:

1) Perfection of the appeals filed in due time;


and

2) The expiration of the time to appeal of the


other parties
Doctrine of Residual
Jurisdiction
Nature of the Residual Jurisdiction
of trial Courts

The "residual jurisdiction" of trial courts is available at


a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have
lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter
involved in the appeal.
This stage is reached upon the perfection of the
appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the
records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the
original records or the records on appeal.
Nature of the Residual Jurisdiction
of trial Courts

Under Rule 42, the residual jurisdiction of the


RTC is available before the Court of Appeals
gives due course to the Petition.
Residual Powers of the
RTC
Residual Powers of the
RTC

The residual powers of the RTC grant it the


power to issue orders done only before the
Court of Appeals gives due course to the
petition.
Residual Powers of the
RTC

These include:

1) Issuance of orders for the protection and


preservation of the rights of the parties that do not
involve any matter litigated by the appeal.
Residual Powers of the
RTC

2) Approve compromises

3) Permit appeals of indigent litigants.

4) Order execution pending appeal, in


accordance with Section 2, Rule 39.
Effect of Failure to
Comply with Requirements
Effect of Failure to Comply with
Requirements for a Petition for Review

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any


of the requirements for a petition for review shall
be a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
appeal.
What are those
requirements?
What are those requirements?

Payment of the docket and other lawful fees


Deposit for costs
Proof of service of the Petition (sent to the RTC and
the adverse party/parties)
Proper form and content of the Petition, as well as
documents which should accompany the Petition (e.g.
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping)
Court of Appeals
Actions to the Petition
Actions to the Petition

After a party files his Petition for Review, with


compliance of all the requirements, the Court of
Appeals may:

1) Dismiss the Petition; or


2) Require the Respondent/s to file a Comment
on the Petition
Dismissal of Petition for
Review
Dismissal of Petition for Review

The Court of Appeals may dismiss a Petition for


Review after its filing based on the following
grounds:

1) Petition is patently without merit;


2) Petition is prosecuted manifestly for delay;
3) The questions raised in the Petition are to
unsubstantial to require consideration.
Comment to the Petition
Comment to the Petition

In the event, the Court of Appeals requires a


Comment, the respondent/s shall file the
Comment within 10 days from Notice (to file
Comment)
Motion to Dismiss is not allowed
Comment to the Petition

The Comment of the respondent/s shall be

1) Filed in seven (7) legible copies,

2) Accompanied by Certified True Copies of such material


portions of the record referred to therein; and

3) Accompanied by other supporting papers

A copy of the Comment shall be served on the Petitioner.


Illustrative Case:
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

Facts:

For failing for three cumulative years in the yearly


evaluations for Professors, Associate Professor
Evangeline Cobbarubias was placed on forced leave,
pursuant to the provisions of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement between Saint Louis University and the
Union of Faculty and Employees of Saint Louis
University.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

After recourse to the grievance committee


failed, Cobarrubias filed a case for illegal forced
leave or illegal suspension with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board of the
DOLE, CAR, Baguio City, which again
failed.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

Voluntary arbitration then followed but was also


unsuccessful, prompting Cobarrubias to file a
Petition for Review with the CA, but failed to
pay the required filing fees and to the attach
copies of the material portions of the records to
the Petition.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition


outright for failure to pay the required filing fees,
but on Motion for Reconsideration of respondent,
the CA reinstated the Petition. Petitioner SLU
insisted that the decision of the Voluntary Arbiter
already attained finality due to the failure of the
respondent to pay the filing fees.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

The CA, then, annuled the VA decision and


ordered the reinstatement of the respondent.
SLU filed for a MR, but was denied, hence the
appeal to the SC.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in reinstating the


Petition filed by respondent despite the failure
to pay the filing fees on time
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

Held:

Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory


privilege, thus, appeal must be made strictly in accordance
with the provision set by law. Upon the filing of the
petition, the petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court
the docketing and other lawful fees; non-compliance with
the procedural requirements shall be a sufficient ground
for the petitions dismissal.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

Held:

Thus, payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed


period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. It is an
essential requirement, without which, the decision
appealed from would become final and executory as if no
appeal has been filed. Payment of the full amount of the
docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of
an appeal.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

The appeal is not perfected if only a part of the


docket fee is deposited within the reglementary
period and the remainder is tendered after the
expiration of the period.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

In the present case, Cobarrubias filed her petition for review


on December 5, 2007, fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
VA decision on November 20, 2007, but paid her docket
fees in full only after seventy-two (72) days, when she filed her
motion for reconsideration on February 15, 2008 and
attached the postal money orders for P4,230.00. Undeniably,
the docket fees were paid late, and without payment of the full
docket fees, Cobarrubias appeal was not perfected within
the reglementary period.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

Procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the


litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide
order to and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.
While procedural rules are liberally construed, the
provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied,
indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless
delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy
discharge of judicial business.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to


be belittled or dismissed simply because their
non-observance may have prejudiced a party's
substantive rights; like all rules, they are required
to be followed.
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

However, there are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as:

(1) most persuasive and weighty reasons;


(2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply
with the prescribed procedure;
(3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable
time from the time of the default;
(4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (
5) the merits of the case;
(6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored
by the suspension of the rules;
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

(7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
dilatory;
(8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby;
(9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without the
appellant's fault;
(10) peculiar, legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case;
(11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
(12) importance of the issues involved; and
(13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge, guided by all the
attendant circumstances
Saint Louis University v. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2011

In Cobarrubias' case, no such explanation has been advanced. Other


than insisting that the ends of justice and fair play are better served if
the case is decided on its merits, Cobarrubias offered no excuse for her
failure to pay the docket fees in full when she filed her petition for
review. To us, Cobarrubias omission is fatal to her cause. The CA
erred in reinstating Cobarrubias petition for review despite the
nonpayment of the requisite docket fees within the reglementary period.
The VA decision had lapsed to finality when the docket fees were paid;
hence, the CA had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal except to
order its dismissal.
Contents of a Comment
Contents of a Comment

The Comment shall:


1) State whether or not he accepts the statement
of matters involved in the Petition;
2) Point out such insufficiencies or inaccuracies as
he believes exist in petitioners statement of matters
involved, but without repetition;
3) State the reasons why the Petition should not
be given due course.
Due Course to the
Petition
When will the Court of Appeals
give due course to the Petition?
When will the Court of Appeals give
due course to the Petition?

Upon filing of the Comment or such other


pleadings as the Court of Appeals may allow or
require; or
After the expiration of the period for the filing
of the Comment, without such comment or
pleading having been submitted.
Ground / Quantum of Proof for
Giving Due Course to Petition
Ground / Quantum of Proof for
Giving Due Course to Petition

The Court of Appeals may give due course to


the Petition only upon finding of prima facie that
the lower court has committed an error of fact or
law that will warrant a reversal or modification of
the appealed decision
Illustrative Case:
ALPA-PCM vs Bulasao
GR# 197124
March 19, 2012
ALPA-PCM vs Bulasao
GR# 197124
March 19, 2012

Facts:

In 2004, private respondents filed an action for unlawful detainer


against ALPA-PCM before the MTC of Benguet, which ruled
in their favor and ordered the latter to vacate the property. On
appeal, RTC affirmed the MTC decision on 31 July 2007.

A month after, or on 31 August 2007, the Bulasaos filed a motion


for execution.
ALPA-PCM vs Bulasao
GR# 197124
March 19, 2012

Three days after, ALPA-PCM filed a MR,which the


RTC denied. It then filed a Motion for Extension to
file Petition/Appeal on 13 November 2007.

In the meantime, the RTC granted the Bulasaos


motion for execution. ALPA-PCM filed a MR but was
denied. RTC then issued a writ of execution while
ALPA-PCM filed a petition for certiorari with the
CA.
ALPA-PCM vs Bulasao
GR# 197124
March 19, 2012

CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave


abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in
granting the Motion for Execution, as the
RTC had the power to grant execution pending
appeal, as part of its residual power under
Section 8, Rule 42. Hence the appeal to the
CA
ALPA-PCM vs Bulasao
GR# 197124
March 19, 2012

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC acted with grave


abuse of discretion in granting motion for
execution filed by the respondent
ALPA-PCM vs Bulasao
GR# 197124
March 19, 2012

Held:

No. There was no abuse of discretion. Despite the filing of a


petition with the CA, however, Rule 42 grants the RTC
residual jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal, so
long as

(1) the CA has not yet given due course to the petition, and
(2) the requirements of Section 2, Rule 39 are observed.
ALPA-PCM vs Bulasao
GR# 197124
March 19, 2012

Under Section 6, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, the


CA can give due course to a petition for review when it
finds prima facie that the lower court has committed an
error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
modification of the appealed decision. This initial
determination by the CA can take place only when the
proper pleadings have actually been filed before the CA,
enabling it to study the facts of the case and the alleged
errors of the assailed ruling.
ALPA-PCM vs Bulasao
GR# 197124
March 19, 2012

In other words, the CA can give due course to an


appeal of the RTC decision only

(1) after the filing of a petition for review, and (2)


upon the filing of the comment or other pleading
required by the CA, or the expiration of the period
for the filing thereof without such comment or
pleading having been submitted.
ALPA-PCM vs Bulasao
GR# 197124
March 19, 2012

When the RTC granted the Bulasaos motion for execution


pending appeal on November 21, 2007, ALPA-PCM has
not yet filed its petition for review with the CA; what ALPA-
PCM filed on November 13, 2007 was only a motion for
extension of time to file its petition. In the absence of any
petition for review actually filed with the CA, the CA could
clearly not have given due course to ALPA-PCMs appeal.
The RTC, thus, retained its residual jurisdiction over the
case to authorize execution of the decision.