1. The exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the Court of First Instance trial court.
rial court. In other words, the order or judgment ends the
calls for and demands a previous legitimate jurisdiction by the
court of origin, the Justice of the Peace Court. De Rivera vs. Halili,
9 SCRA 59, No. L-15159 September 30, 1963
2. An appeal brings up for review any error of judgment committed
by a court with jurisdiction over the subject of the suit and over
the persons of the parties, or any error committed by the court in
the exercise of its jurisdiction amounting to nothing more than an
error of judgment. It was, therefore, very crucial for the
petitioners and their counsel to have been cognizant of the
different modes to appeal the adverse decision of the RTC in the
special civil action for certiorari brought by the Municipality of
Iba. Such modes of appeal were well-delineated in the Rules of
Court, and have been expressly stated in Section 2, Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court since July 1, 199 Heirs of Arturo Garcia I (In
substitution of Heirs of Melecio Bueno) vs. Municipality of Iba,
Zambales, 763 SCRA 349, G.R. No. 162217 July 22, 2015
3. The appeal by notice of appeal under Rule 41 is a matter of right,
but the appeal by petition for review under Rule 42 is a matter of
discretion. Heirs of Arturo Garcia I (In substitution of Heirs of
Melecio Bueno) vs. Municipality of Iba, Zambales, 763 SCRA 349,
G.R. No. 162217 July 22, 2015
4. An appeal as a matter of right, which refers to the right to seek
the review by a superior court of the judgment rendered by the
trial court, exists after the trial in the first instance. In contrast,
the discretionary appeal, which is taken from the decision or final
order rendered by a court in the exercise of its primary appellate
jurisdiction, may be disallowed by the superior court in its
discretion Heirs of Arturo Garcia I (In substitution of Heirs of
Melecio Bueno) vs. Municipality of Iba, Zambales, 763 SCRA 349,
G.R. No. 162217 July 22, 2015
5. An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of
a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the
litigation in the lower court. Au contraire, an interlocutory order
does not dispose of the case completely, but leaves something to
be done as regards the merits of the latter. Madrigal Transport,
Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, 436 SCRA 123, G.R. No.
156067 August 11, 2004
6. A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors
of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other
purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court
within the bounds of its jurisdiction. Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs.
Lapanday Holdings Corporation, 436 SCRA 123, G.R. No. 156067
August 11, 2004
7. Without jurisdiction” means that the court acted with absolute
lack of authority—there is “excess of jurisdiction” when the court
transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority;
“Grave abuse of discretion” implies such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of
jurisdiction Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings
Corporation, 436 SCRA 123, G.R. No. 156067 August 11, 2004
8. Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for
certiorari will not be entertained—remedies of appeal (including
petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not
alternative or successive; Certiorari cannot be a substitute for an
appea Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings
Corporation, 436 SCRA 123, G.R. No. 156067 August 11, 2004
9. The Supreme Court, in order to standardize the appeal periods
provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to
appeal their cases, a reconsideration within 15 days from his
receipt of the court’s decision or order disposing of the action or
proceeding. Once it becomes final and executory, the decision or
order may no longer be amended or modified, not even by an
1
 appellate court. Heirs of Francisco Bihay vs. Heirs of Nicasio
Bathan, 723 SCRA 499, G.R. No. 181949 April 23, 2014
10. The Court finds it necessary to emphasize the well-entrenched
doctrine that an appeal is not a matter of right, but is a mere
statutory privilege. It may be availed of only in the manner
provided by law and the rules. Thus, a party who seeks to exercise
the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the
rules; otherwise, the privilege is lost. Lepanto Consolidated
Mining Corporation vs. Icao, 714 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 196047 January
15, 2014
11. When the law does not clearly provide a rule or norm for the
tribunal to follow in deciding a question submitted, but leaves to
the tribunal the discretion to determine the case in one way or
another, the judge must decide the question in conformity with
justice, reason and equity, in view of the circumstances of the
case Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation vs. Icao, 714 SCRA
1, G.R. No. 196047 January 15, 2014
12. The party who intends to appeal must always comply with the
procedures and rules governing appeals, or else the right of
appeal may be lost or squandered Lebin vs. Mirasol, 657 SCRA 35,
G.R. No. 164255 September 7, 2011
13. An appeal by notice of appeal is a mode that envisions the
elevation of the original records to the appellate court as to
thereby obstruct the trial court in its further proceedings
regarding the other parts of the case. In contrast, the record on
appeal enables the trial court to continue with the rest of the case
because the original records remain with the trial court even as it
affords to the appellate court the full opportunity to review and
decide the appealed matter. Lebin vs. Mirasol, 657 SCRA 35, G.R.
No. 164255 September 7, 2011
14. The perfection of an appeal within the period laid down by law is
mandatory and jurisdictional, because the failure to perfect the
appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court causes
the judgment or final order to become final as to preclude the
appellate court from acquiring the jurisdiction to review the
judgment or final order. Lebin vs. Mirasol, 657 SCRA 35, G.R. No.
164255 September 7, 2011
15. The filing of a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited
under Rule 52, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended and the prevailing 1999 Internal Rules of the Procedure
of the CA (IRCA). Being a prohibited pleading, a second motion for
reconsideration does not have any legal effect and does not toll
the running of the period to appeal. Heirs of Gamaliel Albano vs.
Ravanes, 797 SCRA 472, G.R. No. 183645 July 20, 2016
16. A supervening event refers to facts which transpire after
judgment has become final and executory or to new
circumstances which developed after the judgment has acquired
finality, including matters which the parties were not aware of
prior to or during the trial as they were not yet in existence at that
time Heirs of Gamaliel Albano vs. Ravanes, 797 SCRA 472, G.R. No.
183645 July 20, 2016
17. Except in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or death, an appeal is not a matter of right but of sound
judicial discretion. It may be availed of only in the manner
provided by law and the rules. Muñoz vs. People, 548 SCRA 473,
G.R. No. 162772 March 14, 2008
18. The timeliness of a petition depends not only on its seasonable
filing but also on the prompt service of copy thereof on the
adverse party and the Regional Trial Cour Muñoz vs. People, 548
SCRA 473, G.R. No. 162772 March 14, 2008
19. ; A motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with
the Court of Appeals is allowed and should be grante Magsaysay
Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 513, G.R. No. 111184
August 12, 1996
20. The prohibition against granting an extension of time applies only
in a case where ordinary appeal is perfected by a mere notice of
2
 appeal but it is different in a petition for review where the
pleading is required to be verified, as a petition for review, unlike
an ordinary appeal, requires careful preparation and operose
research in order to put up a persuasive and formidable position.
Magsaysay Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 513, G.R. No.
111184 August 12, 1996
21. Relief from judgment under Rule 38 is a legal remedy whereby a
party seeks to set aside a judgment rendered against him by a
court whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing or was
prevented from taking an appeal, in either case, because of fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence. Quelnan vs. VHF
Philippines, 470 SCRA 73, G.R. No. 138500 September 16, 2005
22. A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within: (a) 60
days from knowledge of judgment, order or other proceedings to
be set aside; and (b) six (6) months from entry of such judgment,
order or other proceeding; Petition for relief is actually the “last
chance” given by law to litigants to question a final judgment or
orde Quelnan vs. VHF Philippines, 470 SCRA 73, G.R. No. 138500
September 16, 2005
23. The Court has invariably held that the doctrine of finality of
judgments is grounded on fundamental considerations of public
policy and sound practice—once a judgment becomes final and
executory, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of
his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party
Quelnan vs. VHF Philippines, 470 SCRA 73, G.R. No. 138500
September 16, 2005
24.