CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

23
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 69 justices after new divisions were created, one based in Cebu City and the other in
Cagayan de Oro City pursuant to RA 8246.

They decide cases by a division of three. They sit en banc only for administrative matters not to decide a case as it
would be impractical considering their number.

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,
but in a case decided by the SC, reported in

IN RE: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO – 210 SCRA 589 [1992]

HELD: “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.”

Section 5 of EO 33 also amended Sec. 9 of BP 129 to read as follows:

“The Court of Appeals shall have the power to receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve
factual issues raised in (a) cases falling within its original jurisdiction, such as actions for annulment of judgments
of regional trial courts, as provided in paragraph (2) hereof; and in (b) cases falling within its appellate jurisdiction
wherein a motion for new trial based only on the ground of newly discovered evidence is granted by it.”

So, Section 9 of BP 129, which defines the second highest court of the land, has been amended by E.O. #33. In
February 1995, it was amended again by RA 7902, known as “The Act expanding the jurisdiction of the CA.”

RA 7902 restored the power of the CA to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence, and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within the original and appellate jurisdiction,
including the power to grant new trials or further proceedings (without limiting the motion for new trial based on
newly discovered evidence). Trials or hearings in the CA must be continuous and completed within 3 months unless
extended by the Chief Justice.

The essential features of the CA’s jurisdiction are as follows:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Original Concurrent

[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.

Note: Refer to discussion the original concurrent jurisdiction of the SC with the CA; with the CA and RTC etc.
The cases where its original jurisdiction is CONCURRENT with the SC are: petitions for the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the following:

 the CSC (RA No. 7902);

 Central Board of Assessment Appeals (PD No. 464; BP Blg. 129; RA No. 7902);

 NLRC (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC 295 SCRA 494; RA No. 7902) or the Secretary of Labor under the Labor
Code.

 Quasi-judicial agencies (BP Blg. 129; RA No. 7902; Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460)

 Also, issuance of writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC.

CONCURRENT with the SC and RTC are those involving habeas corpus, quo warranto, and writs of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus against inferior courts and bodies (Secs. 9[1], 21[2]2, BP Blg. 129; Art. VIII Sec. 5, 1987
Constitution).

For example, a petition for mandamus against the MTC of Cebu City can be filed with the SC, CA, or RTC although
the policy of the Supreme Court is that it should be filed with the RTC based on the hierarchy of the courts.
(Vergara vs. Suelto, 156 SCRA 758)

Q: Being concurrent, what will happen if such a case is filed simultaneously in the CA and SC?

A: The consequence is found in Section 17 of the Interim Rules. In other words, the Interim Rules are still intact.

Interim Rules, Sec. 17. Petitions for writs of certiorari, etc. - No petition for certiorari, CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES
COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

24
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.

Original Exclusive

[2] Section 9, paragraph 2, BP 129

(2) “Exclusive” jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts;

Q: Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC’s, 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 but original jurisdiction. Meaning, you are filing an action before the CA for the first
time. And the nature of the action is to annul a judgment of the RTC.

The implementation is found in Rule 47 of the Rules.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Paragraph 3, Sec. 9 of BP 129 defines 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 final
judgments, decisions, resolution, orders or awards of RTC’s. 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, because it covers all RTC’s and the appellate jurisdiction is
exclusive.

And not only RTC’s. The law says “and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions…” Not only decisions of the RTC but also of quasi-judicial agencies or bodies, also called
administrative bodies.

Administrative bodies are 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 lose 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 specific by adding this phrase, “including the SEC, SSS, the
Employees Compensation commission and the Civil Service Commission (CSC).”

That is the addition.

CSC – 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 are the COMELEC and the
COA.

Obviously, the purpose of this statute is to unburden the SC with so many cases.

The phrase “except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court…”means all
cases should be appealed to the CA except those which belong to the SC under the Constitution. We
know that already.

And also “except those falling under the Labor Code of the Philippines.”

A labor case is not supposed to be filed 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).

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.(This is