Professor: Justice Gomez-Estoesta

by Aguila, Bacquel, Celerio,

Rule 45 Hao, Ignacio, Jamias, Paler,
Tamayo
2.1 NATURE OF AN APPEAL BY CERTIORARI

❖ 2.11 FORM
❖ 2.12 QUESTION OF LAW v. QUESTION OF FACT
❖ 2.13 DISTINGUISHED FROM CERTIORARI UNDER
RULE 65
❖ 2.14 WHEN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER
RULE 65 CAN BE TREATED AS AN APPEAL BY
CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45
❖ 2.2 UNDER THE CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL COURTESY
❖ 2.3 THE INTERNAL RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT (A.M. No.
10-4-20-SC, Rules 3 and 6)
❖ 2.4 REVIEW OF JUDGEMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OBTAINED IN:
❖ Writ of Amparo (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 07-9-12 dated Oct. 16, 2000)
❖ Writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated January 22,
2008)
❖ Writ of Kalikasan (Sec. 16, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC on the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Resolution)
 2.11 FORM

❖ CHECK RULE 45
2.12 QUESTION OF LAW v. QUESTION OF FACT

❖ only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45

petition
❖ the SC is not a trier of facts
❖ appreciation and resolution of factual issues are
functions of the lower courts
2.12 QUESTION OF LAW v. QUESTION OF FACT

❖ Test— Whether the appellate court can determine the

issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the
evidence, in which case it is a question of law;
otherwise, it is a question of fact
 QUESTION OF LAW

❖ exists when the doubt or difference enters on the law is

on a certain state of facts
❖ must not involve an examination of the probative value
of the evidence presented
❖ resolution of issue must rest solely on what the law
provides on the given set of circumstances
EXAMPLES OF QUESTION OF LAW
❖ Whether a case’s remand for further investigation was correct after finding a violation
of respondent’s right to due process (PAGCOR v. CA, G.R. No. 185668)
❖ Whether the provisions of a lease contract have been interpreted in line with the Civil
Code and existing jurisprudence (MIAA v. Avia Filipinas International Inc.)
❖ Whether the metropolitan trial court is the proper court to take cognizance of a perjury
case (Union Bank of the Phils. v. People)
❖ Whether the CA erred in affirming the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman finding
petitioner guilty of gross neglect of duty and dismissing him from service (Fernandez v.
Office of the Ombudsman)
❖ Whether mandamus lies to compel the RTC to issue an alias writ of execution to execute
a compromise agreement which the Provincial Sheriff, the MTC and the RTC ruled to
have been properly executed (Cachopero v. Celestial, G.R. No. 146754)
 QUESTION OF FACT
❖ exists if the doubt enters on the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts
❖ query invites calibration of the whole evidence
considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the
existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and
to the whole and the probability of the situation
❖ the issue invites a review of the evidence presented
EXAMPLES OF QUESTION OF FACT

❖ Whether certain items of evidence should be accorded

probative value or weight, or should be rejected as feeble or
spurious;
❖ Whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear or
convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue;
❖ Whether or not there is negligence;
❖ Whether petitioners were builder in good faith;
❖ Whether a driver was negligent in a vehicular accident.
Distinguished from Certiorari under Rule 65
Distinguished from Certiorari under Rule 65
 2.14 When petition for certiorari under Rule 65 can be treated
as an appeal by certiorari under 45

❖ may be done by the SC in the exercise of discretion and in

accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the RoC
❖ petition still needs to comply reglementary periods
❖ filing within the prescribed period is mandatory and
jurisdictional such that failure to do so renders the assailed
decision final and executory and deprives SC jurisdiction to
alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal
❖ may be done to avoid manifest injustice (cite a case
example)
 2.14 When petition for certiorari under Rule 65 can be treated
as an appeal by certiorari under 45

❖ To Avoid Manifest Injustice

❖ “… under exceptional circumstances, as when stringent application of the
rules will result in manifest injustice, the Court may set aside technicalities
and proceed with the appeal…”
❖ “…the Court recognised the broader interest of justice and gave due
course to the appeal even if it was a wrong mode of appeal and was even
filed beyond the reglementary period provided by the rules.”
❖ “Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a
healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and the
guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the just and
proper disposition of his cause.”
2.2 Understanding the Concept of Judicial Courtesy

❖ [t]he principle of judicial courtesy to justify the suspension

of the proceedings before the lower court even without an
injunctive writ or order from the higher court. In that
case, xxx "[d]ue respect for the Supreme Court and
practical and ethical considerations should have prompted
the appellate court to wait for the final determination of
the petition [for certiorari] before taking cognizance of the
case and trying to render moot exactly what was before
this [C]ourt.” (Eternal Gardens v. Court of Appeals (247
Phil. 387 [1988])
2.2 Understanding the Concept of Judicial Courtesy

❖ [t]he principle of judicial courtesy to justify the suspension

of the proceedings before the lower court even without an
injunctive writ or order from the higher court. In that
case, xxx "[d]ue respect for the Supreme Court and
practical and ethical considerations should have prompted
the appellate court to wait for the final determination of
the petition [for certiorari] before taking cognizance of the
case and trying to render moot exactly what was before
this [C]ourt.” (Eternal Gardens v. Court of Appeals (247
Phil. 387 [1988])
2.2 Understanding the Concept of Judicial Courtesy

❖ [The Court], however, have qualified and limited the application of

judicial courtesy in Go v. Abrogar and Republic v. Sandiganbayan.
In these cases, [The Court] expressly delimited the application of
judicial courtesy to maintain the efficacy of Section 7, Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, and held that the principle of judicial
courtesy applies only "if there is a strong probability that the
issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and
moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in
the lower court." Through these cases, we clarified that the
principle of judicial courtesy remains to be the exception rather
than the rule. (Lee v. Macatlang [G.R. No. 180147, Jan. 14, 2015])
2.2 Understanding the Concept of Judicial Courtesy

❖ Rule 45, Section 1.

❖ xxx The petition may include an application for a
writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional
remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which
must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the
same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in
the same action or proceeding at any time during its
pendency.
2.2 Understanding the Concept of Judicial Courtesy

❖ Rule 65, Section 7.

❖ Sec. 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. – The court in which the petition is
filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation
of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt
the course of the principal case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the public respondent from further
proceeding with the case.
❖ The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from
the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary
restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the
public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an
administrative charge.
THE INTERNAL RULES
OF THE SUPREME
COURT

(AM No 10-4-20-SC)
 RULE 3

THE EXERCISE OF
JUDICIAL FUNCTION
WHAT IS THE TASK OF
THE SUPREME COURT?
1) THE SUPREME COURT IS A COURT OF
LAW.
The Court is a court of law. Its primary task is to
resolve and decide cases and issues presented by
litigants according to law. However, it may apply
equity where the court is unable to arrive at a
conclusion or judgment strictly on the basis of law due
to a gap, silence, obscurity or vagueness of the law
that the Court can still legitimately remedy, and the
special circumstances of the case.

Rule 3, Section 1.
2) IT IS NOT A TRIER OF FACTS.
The Court is not a trier of facts its role is to decide cases
based on the findings of fact before it. Where the
Constitution, the law or the Court itself, in the exercise of
its discretion, decides to receive evidence, the reception
of evidence may be delegated to a member of the Court,
to either the Clerk of Court or one of the Division Clerks of
Court, or to one of the appellate courts or its justices who
shall submit to the Court a report and recommendation
on the basis of the evidence presented.

Rule 3, Section 2.
3) EXCEPTIONS
(a) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely
on speculation, surmise and conjecture;
(b) the inference made is manifestly mistaken;
(c) there is grave abuse of discretion;
(d) the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts;

Rule 3, Section 4.
3) EXCEPTIONS
(e) the findings of fact are conflicting;
(f) the collegial appellate courts went beyond the
issues of the case, and their findings are contrary
to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(g) the findings of fact of the collegial appellate
courts are contrary to those of the trial court;
(h) said findings of fact are conclusions without
citation specific evidence on which they are based;

Rule 3, Section 4.
3) EXCEPTIONS
(i) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by
the respondents;
(j) the findings of fact of the collegial appellate courts
are premised on the supposed evidence, but are
contradicted by the evidence on record; and
(k) all other similar and exceptional cases warranting
a review of the lower courts’ findings of fact.

Rule 3, Section 4.
4) ADVISORY OPINIONS ARE
PROSCRIBED.

The Court cannot issue advisory

opinions on the state and meaning of
laws, or take cognizance of moot and
academic questions, subject only to
notable exceptions involving
constitutional issues.

Rule 3, Section 3.
 RULE 6

FILING, RECEIVING &
PROCESSING OF INITIATORY
PLEADINGS AND APPEALS
Section 1. Governing rules of procedure in appeals or petitions
filed in the Supreme Court.
Section 2. Reception of pleadings and other documents. 
Section 3. Assessment and payment.
Section 4. Docket number and entry in logbook.
Section 5. Case Administration System.
Section 6. Indexing and transmittal to Docket Division.
Section 7. Classification of cases.
Section 8. Recording of cases in the main docket book.
Section 9. The rollo for each case.
Section 10. Processing.
Section 11. Transmittal of rollo from the Receiving Section to
the Office of the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court.
 2.4 REVIEW OF JUDGEMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
OBTAINED

❖ Writ of Amparo (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 07-9-12 dated Oct. 16,
2000)
❖ Writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated
January 22, 2008)
❖ Writ of Kalikasan (Sec. 16, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No.
09-6-8-SC on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases Resolution)
 Writ of Amparo (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 07-9-12 dated Oct. 16,
2000)

❖ Section 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal from the

final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law
or both.
❖ The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from
the date of notice of the adverse judgment.
❖ The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas
corpus cases.
 Writ of Amparo (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 07-9-12 dated Oct. 16,
2000)

❖ De Lima v. Gatdula (final judgment or order)

❖ FACTS: Respondent filed a Petition for the Issuance of a
Writ of Amparo against petitioners, wanting them to
“cease and desist from framing him for the fake ambush
incident”. Instead of deciding, the judge issued summons
and conducted a hearing to determine whether a TPO
may be issued.
❖ The RTC rendered a “decision” granting the issuance of
the writ of amparo, and granted the interim reliefs prayed
for.
 Writ of Amparo (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 07-9-12 dated Oct. 16,
2000)

❖ De Lima v. Gatdula (final judgment or order)

❖ ISSUE: Whether a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
is the proper remedy.
❖ HELD: NO. The “decision” granting the Writ of Amparo is not the
judgment or final order contemplated under this Rule. Hence, a
Petition for Review under Rule 45 may not yet be the proper
remedy at this time. The “decision” is thus an interlocutory order,
granting interim reliefs upon filing of the petition but before final
judgment is rendered.
❖ The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from
the actual order called the Writ of Amparo.
 Writ of Amparo (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 07-9-12 dated Oct. 16,
2000)

❖ Salcedo v. Bollozos (when to file an appeal)

❖ FACTS: The Complainant averred that Private Respondent and heavily
armed men forced themselves inside his property, harassed and
threatened to kill and harm him and his workers, uttered defamatory
statements and occupied the property.
❖ Private Respondent was arrested and detained. His sister filed a petition for
amparo on his behalf. Respondent-Judge immediately issued the writ of
amparo on the day the petition was filed, which directed the police officers
to release Private Respondent.
❖ Complainant filed this present administrative case charging Respondent
Judge of grave misconduct and ignorance of the law in issuing the writ of
amparo with haste.
 Writ of Amparo (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 07-9-12 dated Oct. 16,
2000)

❖ Salcedo v. Bollozos (when to file an appeal)

❖ ISSUE: Whether the case should prosper.
❖ HELD: NO. The propriety of the issuance of the Writ
of Amparo cannot be raised as an issue in the present
administrative case. The proper recourse for
complainant should have been to file an appeal from
the final judgment or order of the Respondent-Judge, to
this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
 Writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated
January 22, 2008)

❖ Appeal in Habeas Data

❖ SEC 1:
❖ When there is a violation or threat of one’s right to privacy in life,
liberty or security;
❖ The threat or violation is committed by an unlawful act or
omission of a:
❖ a. public official or employee;
❖ b. private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting, or storing of data or information;
 Writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated
January 22, 2008)

❖ Appeal in Habeas Data

❖ SEC 1:
❖ The data or information gathered, collected, or stored
are regarding one’s person, family, home, and
correspondence.
❖ It is not applicable in property disputes. (Castillo v.
Cruz)
 Writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated
January 22, 2008)

❖ SEC. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. - The

following pleadings and motions are prohibited:

xxx

(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief

orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any
interlocutory order.

xxx
 Writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated
January 22, 2008)

❖ SEC. 19. Appeal. - Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.
❖ The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from
the date of notice of the judgment or final order.
❖ The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas
corpus and amparo cases.
Writ of Kalikasan (Sec. 16, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Resolution)

❖ Who may avail of the writ?

❖ Section 1:
❖ A natural or juridical person;
❖ Entity authorized by law; or
❖ People’s organizations, NGOs or any public interest
group accredited by or registered with any government
agency on behalf of persons whose constitutional right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated.
Writ of Kalikasan (Sec. 16, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Resolution)

❖ Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases

❖ Section 5. Citizen suit. — Any Filipino citizen in
representation of others, including minors or
generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce
rights or obligations under environmental laws.
Writ of Kalikasan (Sec. 16, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Resolution)

❖ When is it available?
❖ 1. there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to
a balanced and healthful ecology;
❖ 2. the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity; and
❖ 3. the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces (LNL
Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. Agham Party List, G.R. No. 209165, April
12, 2016).
Writ of Kalikasan (Sec. 16, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Resolution)

❖ Where is it filed?
❖ Section 3—
❖ Supreme Court or
❖ Any of the stations of the Court of Appeals
Writ of Kalikasan (Sec. 16, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Resolution)

❖ How do you appeal?

❖ Section 16. Appeal. - Within fifteen (15) days from the
date of notice of the adverse judgment or denial of
motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to
the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
❖ The appeal may raise questions of fact.
Writ of Kalikasan (Sec. 16, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Resolution)

❖ Segovia v. Climate Change Commission  

❖ At the very least, the magnitude of the ecological
problems contemplated under the RPEC satisfies at least
one of the exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of courts,
as when direct resort is allowed where it is dictated by
public welfare.
❖ Given that the RPEC allows direct resort to this Court,  it
is ultimately within the Court's discretion whether or not
to accept petitions brought directly before it.
Writ of Kalikasan (Sec. 16, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Resolution)

❖ Issuance of Writ is not synonymous to Judgment

granting the privilege of Writ of Kalikasan
- West Tower Condominium Corp. v. First Phil. Industrial
Corp., June 16, 2015
- Paje v. Casiño, February 3, 2015
- Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications,
Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), July 26,
2016
END