CASE 2017-0018: ALEXIS C. ALMENDRAS VS. SOUTH DAVAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (SODACO), ET AL. (G.R. NO. 198209, 22 MARCH, 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (QUESTION OF LAW VS QUESTION OF FACT; MODES OF  APPEAL RE RTC DECISION; HEIRARCHY OF COURTS) (BRIEF TITLE: ALMENDRAS VS SODACO)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on
Certiorari is DENIED.

 

The Resolution dated August 27, 2014 directing petitioner to file a
Consolidated Reply is RECALLED and SET ASIDE.

 

The Motion for Leave to Enter Appearance as Collaborating Counsel with
Manifestation filed by Atty. Edgar Y. T01res, Jr. which did not bear the
conformity of petitioner is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 45 AND PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65?

 

PETITION FOR REVIEW IS LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF LAW AND ERRORS OF JUDGMENT. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI CONCERNS ERRORS OF JURISDICTION INCLUDING GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

 

IN THIS CASE PETITIONER RAISED THE ISSUE ON WHETHER A COPY OF A MOTION WAS DULY SERVED TO HIM. THIS IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH CANNOT BE RAISED IN A PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED WITH THE SUPREME COURT UNDER RULE 45.

 

HOW TO DETERMINE QUESTION OF LAW FROM QUESTION OF FACT?

 

A QUESTION OF LAW ARISES WHEN THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS ON A CERTAIN STATE OF FACTS. A QUESTION OF FACT ARISES WHEN DOUBT ARISES AS TO THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE ALLEGED FACTS.

 

THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN ISSUE INVOLVES A QUESTION OF LAW OR QUESTION OF FACT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN REPUBLIC V. MALABANAN 18 WHERE THIS COURT EXPLAINED:

 

A QUESTION OF LAW ARISES WHEN THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS ON A CERTAIN STATE OF FACT; WHILE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHEN THE DOUBT ARISES AS TO THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE ALLEGED FACTS.

 

FOR A QUESTION TO BE ONE OF LAW, THE SAME MUST NOT INVOLVE AN EXAMINATION OF THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE LITIGANT OR ANY OF THEM. THE RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE MUST REST SOLELY ON WHAT THE LAW PROVIDES ON THE GIVEN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT MODES OF APPEALING AN RTC DECISION?

 

THEY ARE:

 

A) ORDINARY APPEAL OR APPEAL BY WRIT OF ERROR, WHERE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED IN A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL ACTION BY THE RTC IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION;

 

B) PETITION FOR REVIEW, WHERE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED BY THE RTC IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION;

 

AND  C) PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE SUPREME COURT.

 

THE FIRST MODE OF APPEAL IS GOVERNED BY RULE 41, AND IS TAKEN TO THE CA ON QUESTIONS OF FACT OR MIXED  QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW.

 

THE SECOND MODE, COVERED BY RULE 42, IS BROUGHT TO THE CA ON QUESTIONS OF FACT, OF LAW, OR MIXED QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW.

 

THE THIRD MODE, PROVIDED FOR BY RULE 45, IS ELEVATED TO THIS COURT ONLY ON QUESTIONS OFLAW.

 

SUPPOSE A WRONG MODE OF APPEAL IS RESORTED TO, WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE?

 

THE APPEAL WILL BE DISMISSED.

 

Section 4 of Circular 2-90 in effect provides that an appeal taken either to this Court or to the CA by the wrong mode or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. This rule is now incorporated in Section 5, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court.

 

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE RULE ON HEIRARCHY OF COURTS?

 

DIRECT RESORT FROM LOWER COURT TO THE SUPREME COURT WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED UNLESS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY CANNOT BE OBTAINED IN THE LOWER TRIBUNALS.

 

Moreover, the filing of the case directly with this Court departs from the hierarchy of courts. Normally,  direct resort from the lower courts to this Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0008-ALEXIS C. ALMENDRAS VS. SOUTH DAVAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (SODACO), ET AL.

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.