JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS The jurisdiction of the CA is now governed by BP 129

or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. BP 129 was passed in 1983 by the former Batasang Pambansa which practically abolished all the regular courts at that time, and also with the special courts except the SC which cannot be abolished by Congress. What was also spared was the Court of Tax Appeals which was likewise not affected. In lieu of these, other courts were created. The constitutionality of BP 129 was challenged as violative of the security of tenure of the judges. But its constitutionality was sustained in the case of DELA LLANA vs. ALBA, 112 SCRA 294. The CA is composed of over 50 justices but I think new divisions were created. They decide cases by a division of three. Before BP 129, the court was also called the Court of Appeals, the counterpart of the present CA, though the CA now is different and more powerful than the old one. BP 129 abolished the old CA and created another court which was called the INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (IAC). So, from the 1983 to 1986, it was called the IAC. After the EDSA Revolution, President Aquino, pursuant to her law-making powers, issued E.O. #33 amending the Judiciary Law and changed the name of IAC to CA (referring to the jurisdiction of the IAC). Many people thought that the CA of President Aquino under E.O. #33 is actually the IAC under another name only, pinalitan lang ng pangalan. But in a case decided by the SC, reported in IN RE: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO 210 SCRA 589 [1992] HELD: E.O. # 33 created an entirely new court. Therefore, the IAC existed only for three years from 1983 to 1986. Hence, President Aquino not only re-baptized or re-christened the IAC but she actually abolished the IAC and created a new CA. It is the holding of the Court that the present Court of Appeals is a new entity, different and distinct from the Court of Appeals or the Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to Executive Order No. 33, for it was created in the wake of the massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government of Corazon C. Aquino in the aftermath of the people power (EDSA) revolution in 1986. So, in effect, Section 9 which denes the second highest court of the land has been amended twice. First, by E.O. #33. And then on February 1995, it was amended again by RA 7902, known as The Act expanding the jurisdiction of the CA. The essential features of the CAs jurisdiction are as follows: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS [1] Section 9, paragraph 1, BP 129 Section 9 Jurisdiction The Court of Appeals shall exercise: (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Does the language sound familiar to you? Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, quo warranto. Did you hear that before?

Under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court the language is the same, eh. Now, we take the same provision for the second time. So, if I would like to le a petition for habeas corpus, where will I le it? Q: If I le it with the Supreme Court, is it allowed? A: Yes, because the Constitution says so. Q: But suppose I will instead le it with the CA, is it also allowed? A: Yes, under Section 9, paragraph 1. So what is the conclusion? The SC and the CA exercises concurrent jurisdiction to entertain petitions to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto. Alright, so I will go to a specic SITUATION: Im a clever lawyer, and I will le a petition for quo warranto. In order to be sure I will get what I want, I will prepare two identical petitions. Since concurrent man sila, I will le before the SC and the other one with the CA. Sigurista ba kung madisgrasya sa isa, meron pang isa. Q: Can I do that? Meaning, I will le one petition before the SC, I will le another petition, pareho-pareho I will invoke the jurisdiction of the two courts at the same time. Now, suppose I will do that, what do you think will happen to me? A: The consequence is found in Section 17 of the Interim Rules. Thats why, as I said, the Interim Rules are still intact. Interim Rules, Sec. 17. Petitions for writs of certiorari, etc. - No petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus or quo warranto may be filed in the IAC if another similar petition has been filed or is still pending in the SC. Nor may such petition be filed in the SC if a similar petition has been filed or is still pending in the IAC, unless it is to review the action taken by the IAC on the petition filed with it. A violation of this rule shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned. So, eto, you believe you are a clever lawyer, so you will le two identical petitions. Do you know what will happen to you according to the provision? Once the CA learns that you led an identical petition with the SC, the CA will dismiss the petition before it. And once the SC also learns that you also led before the CA, the SC will also dismiss the one you led before it. So you end up with nothing because both courts will dismiss. And not only that, both courts will declare you in contempt of court and if you are a lawyer, disciplinary actions may be taken against you. That is what you will get if you think you are clever. It turns out that you placed yourself in a frying pan. In other words, this is what is called abhorrent, contemptible practice of FORUM SHOPPING. Have you heard that term before forum shopping? Yun bang sabay-sabay kang mag-le ng case. You will invoke the jurisdiction of two or more courts simultaneously. That is an act of contempt of court (Rule 7, Section 5). EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS [2] Section 9, paragraph 2, BP 129 (2) Exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; Yes, you will notice again that this type of action belongs to the original jurisdiction of the CA. But there is something that you will notice. In paragraph 2, it says there exclusive jurisdiction. In paragraph 1, the word exclusive is not present. As already explained earlier in paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the CA is concurrent with the SC. In paragraph 2, the original jurisdiction of the CA is exclusive with the CA. You can only le this type of action before the CA such as an action for annulment of judgments of the RTCs. Q: Actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs, an action to annul a judgment of the RTC. Now, is this

similar to an appeal? Is this the same as appealing the decision of the RTC to the CA? A: No, because in appeal, you are invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the CA. Here in paragraph 2, it is not appellate jurisdiction. Original ito, eh. Meaning, you are ling an action before the CA for the rst time. And the nature of the action is to annul a judgment of the RTC. Well, you are familiar with the Civil Law about actions of annulment of contracts. So, if there is such a case of annulment of contract, there is also such a case as annulment of judgments of the RTCs and you come to wonder: Q: What would be the ground? What will be the ground to annul the judgment of the RTC and how do you distinguish it from an appeal? A: The present 1997 Civil Procedure now contains a specic rule on this. Before 1997, the guidelines on annulment of judgment of the RTCs are SC decisions. There is no specic rule, ba. But yung guidelines are based on jurisprudence. Right now, starting July 1, 1997, there is now a specic rule on annulment of judgments of RTC. And that is Rule 47. That is an entirely new rule. So that is enacted precisely to implement Section 9 Paragraph 2. Of course, we will discuss that rule very much later. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Now well go the 3rd. Paragraph 3 is the most popular jurisdiction of the CA. Appellate, eh. This is what is often involved. Most of the cases which land in the CA are appealed cases. Alright, so paragraph 3 denes the appellate jurisdiction of the CA. [3] Section 9, paragraph 3, BP 129 (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the SC in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under PD 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. Take note, the appellate jurisdiction of the CA is EXCLUSIVE. Now, if you will analyze paragraph 3, you will notice that the CA is a powerful court because it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all nal judgments, decisions, resolution, orders or awards of RTCs. So as a general rule, if the RTC, anywhere in the country renders a decision and you want to appeal, whether civil or criminal, chances are it will go the to CA. It is a powerful court, eh all RTCs eh exclusive pa. And not only only RTCs. The law says and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions Not only decisions of the RTC but quasi-judicial, this is what you call administrative bodies. Administrative bodies are not actually part of the executive branch but they act just like courts of justice. They can decide cases and there are hundreds of administrative agencies in the Philippines. And therefore, if you lost a case before anyone of these bodies, or tribunals, you appeal the decision not with the SC, but to the CA. The amendments by RA 7902 is even more specic by adding this phrase, including the SEC, SSS, the Employees Compensation commission and the Civil Service Commission (CSC). That is the addition. Gi-klaro ba. CSC this is what Ive notice beforeI told you before. Before this law was passed, under the Constitution, decisions of the CSC are appealed to the SC together with the COMELEC and the COA. But with the passage of RA 7902, the appeal from the CSC has been transferred to the CA, so what is left behind in the Constitution is the COMELEC and the COA na lang.

For a while there I thought that this was wrong because the CSC is a constitutional body and its decisions shall be appealed to a non-constitutional body like the CA. So, how do we reconcile this with the Constitution, Article IX-A, Section 7, where it states that the ruling of each commission shall be reviewed by the SC? However, the same provision states that: Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law. And the law is the RA 7902. So, this is how we reconcile it, in other words, the Constitution and the law can provide for a different mode. Obviously, the purpose of this statute is to unburden the SC with so many cases. At least transfer some of the workload to the CA. That is the obvious purpose. The phrase except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Courtmeans all cases should be appealed to the CA except those which belong to the SC under the Constitution. We know that already. When the issue is the constitutionality of the law, treaty, legality of any tax, the jurisdiction of any lower court yan, hindi puwede sa CA. Diretso yan sa SC. And also except those falling under the Labor Code of the Philippines. A labor case is not supposed to be led in court but with a quasi-judicial agency known as the NLRC and you start in the local level from the Labor Arbiter, then the decisions of the Labor Arbiter are appealable to the NLRC and then from there, where will you go? Q: Is the decision of the NLRC appealable before the CA? Because it is also a quasi-judicial agency and under the law, all decisions of quasi-judicial agencies are supposed to be appealed to the CA. A: NO. The decision of the NLRC is an exception except those under the appellate jurisdiction of the SC under the Constitution and in accordance with the Labor Code (PD 422). So conclusion: NLRC decisions cannot be appealed to the CA and the only way to elevate it is to the SC by what we call certiorari, not appeal. Also, decisions of the Secretary of Labor, under the Labor Code are not reviewable by the CA, but they are reviewable directly by the SC. And then there is the phrase, "the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. So, in other words, the new Judiciary Law still makes some reference to the old law. This shows that the entire 1948 Judiciary Law has not been totally repealed. Some provisions are still intact because of the reference. Now what is this subparagraph 1 of the third paragraph? It only applies to criminal cases. EXAMPLE: A person is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, his co-accused is sentenced to reclusion temporal or prison mayor, and all of them will appeal, all of them should be sa SC na. Otherwise, you will be splitting the appeal into two parts. Subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17. When by appeal from the RTC is on pure legal question, SC yan. Q: Suppose nasagulan ng questions of fact, I will appeal questions of fact and questions of law. A: Under the 1948 Judiciary Law, you cannot appeal directly to the SC. You must appeal to the CA. The same thing on when the issue is on the constitutionality of a treaty, law, legality of tax, when the jurisdiction of the lower court is in issue, as explained here in this paragraph of the Judiciary Act of 1948, if the appeal is 100% constitutional issue, jurisdictional or legality issue appeal is to the SC under the Constitution. But if it is mixed with questions of fact, do not go to the SC. You go rst to the CA. That is what the paragraph is all about. Alright, so that takes care of the jurisdiction of the CA. [4] Section 9, last paragraph, BP 129: The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the CA must be continuous and must be completed within three

(3) months unless extended by the Chief Justice. (As amended by RA 7902) This paragraph shows that the present CA that we have now is a more powerful court than before. It is a unique court. Aside from being an appellate court, it also acts as a trial court. It may receive evidence but only those evidence which were overlooked by the trial court. It can order a new trial or conduct a new trial itself. Q: If an issue of fact is tried before the RTC, can I always ask the CA to allow me to present evidence? Does it mean to say now that since the CA is a very powerful court, it can take the place of the RTC? Meaning, if Im a party instead of presenting my case before the RTC, I will not, Doon na lang sa CA. A: That is already interpreted in the case of LINGER AND FISHER vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT 125 SCRA 522 [1983] HELD: The power of the CA to receive evidence refers only to incidental facts which were not 100 percent touched upon, or matters which were simply overlooked by the trial court. You cannot opt not to present evidence before the RTC. It only refers to incidental facts. Evidence necessary in regards to factual issues raised in cases falling within the Appellate Courts original and appellate jurisdiction contemplates incidental facts which were not touched upon, or fully heard by the trial or respondent Court. The law could not have intended that the Appellate Court would hold an original and full trial of a main factual issue in a case, which properly pertains to Trial Courts. < published by LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles Glenda Buhion Joseph Martin Castillo Aaron Philip Cruz Pearly Joan Jayagan Anderson Lo Yogie Martirizar Frecelyn Mejia Dorothy Montejo Rowena Panales Regina Sison Ruby Teleron Marilou Timbol Maceste Uy Perla Vicencio Liberty Wong Jude Zamora Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong Emily Alio Karen Allones Joseph Apao Melody Penelope Batu Gemma Betonio Rocky Cabarroguis Charina Cabrera Marlon Cascuejo Mike Castaos Karen de Leon Cherry Frondozo Jude Fuentes Maila Ilao Ilai Llena Rocky Malaki Jenny Namoc Ines Papaya Jennifer Ramos Paisal Tanjili LAKAS ATENISTA 20012002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez Jessamyn Agustin Judee Uy Janice Joanne Torres Genie Salvania Pches Fernandez Riezl Locsin Kenneth Lim Charles Concon Roy Acelar Francis Ampig Karen Cacabelos Maying Dadula Hannah Examen Thea Guadalope Myra Montecalvo Paul Ongkingco Michael Pito Rod Quiachon Maya Quitain Rina Sacdalan Lyle Santos Joshua Tan Thaddeus Tuburan John Vera Cruz Mortmort

PAGE 10

PAGE 27 JBD