NEW
Font size
WorksheetsMode of Appeal, Part 1
Total questions: 21
Worksheet time: 21mins
Maria filed a civil case for damages against Juan in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After trial, the RTC rendered judgment dismissing Maria's complaint for lack of merit. Maria received the judgment on June 1. Instead of filing a Notice of Appeal within the 15-day reglementary period under the Rules of Court, she filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on June 20, arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that appeal was the proper remedy to assail a judgment on the merits, not certiorari. Maria insists that her petition should still be given due course in the interest of justice, since appeal is a matter of right. Which is the correct ruling on Maria's case?
Maria's petition for certiorari should prosper because appeal is a constitutional right, and its liberal application must prevail over technical rules.
Maria lost her remedy of appeal by failing to file it on time; since appeal is a statutory privilege and not part of due process, her failure to comply with the rules meant she can no longer question the RTC judgment.
Maria's petition should be treated as an appeal in the interest of substantial justice, because what matters is her intent to reverse the RTC judgment regardless of the mode of remedy.
Carlos lost in the RTC on a complaint for ejectment. He received the decision on July 1 but filed his Notice of Appeal only on July 20-four days late beyond the reglementary period. He explained that he mistakenly believed the deadline was 20 days instead of 15. The Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal outright for being late. Carlos now pleads that the rules should be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice, since he has strong evidence showing he is the true owner of the property and eviction would render him homeless. Should Carlos' appeal be given due course?
Yes. Courts must always relax the rules in favor of justice, especially when property rights are involved.
No. Appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural or constitutional right. Failure to comply with the reglementary period for appeal means he lost the remedy, and mere mistake in computation is not a compelling reason to relax the rules.
Yes, but only if Carlos shows persuasive and exceptional reasons-such as fraud, accident, or excusable negligence-proving that strict application of the rules would lead to an injustice grossly disproportionate to his minor error.
Lorenzo died intestate. In the settlement of his estate, the RTC (sitting as a probate court) issued the following orders: Order A: Directing the administrator to submit an inventory of estate properties. Order B: Approving the project of partition and adjudicating shares of the heirs. Order C: Denying one heir's opposition to the administrator's accounting, ruling that the opposition was filed out of time. One heir, Miguel, seeks to appeal all three orders to the Court of Appeals. Which of the RTC orders are appealable under the final judgment rule and Rule 109 of the Rules of Court?
Only Order B, because approval of the project of partition finally disposes of a substantial matter in the estate proceedings.
Orders B and C, because both completely resolve distinct matters in the special proceeding, while Order A is interlocutory.
All three orders, because every order in a special proceeding is appealable since it affects rights of the parties.
Ana filed a small claims case before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to recover ₱80,000 she lent to Ben. After hearing, the MTC rendered judgment in Ana's favor. Ben filed a Notice of Appeal to the RTC, arguing that the MTC erred in not considering his defense of partial payment. Meanwhile, in a separate summary procedure case, Carla sued Diego in the MTC for unlawful detainer. The MTC ruled for Carla, and Diego appealed to the RTC. The RTC affirmed the MTC's judgment. Diego now files a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, claiming denial of due process. Which of the following is correct?
Both Ben and Diego may pursue their appeals because every litigant has a constitutional right to appeal.
Ben's appeal must be dismissed outright because small claims judgments of first-level courts are final, executory, and unappealable. Diego's petition must likewise be dismissed because RTC decisions on appeal under the Summary Procedure are also final, executory, and unappealable.
Only Diego's petition may prosper because unlawful detainer involves property rights, and denial of due process makes appeal mandatory to prevent injustice.
During trial, the RTC issued an Order admitting a photocopy of a contract in evidence despite the defendant's objection that the original was never presented nor accounted for. The defendant moved for reconsideration, but the RTC denied the motion. The defendant then filed a notice of appeal, claiming that the RTC's admission of the photocopy is erroneous and prejudicial to his rights. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for being improper, ruling that the RTC order was merely interlocutory. The defendant insists that the only way to challenge the ruling is through an appeal. What is the proper remedy of the defendant against the RTC's admission of the photocopy?
Appeal to the Court of Appeals, because any error of the trial court must be immediately appealable to prevent injustice.
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, since the RTC order is interlocutory and not appealable, and certiorari lies only when the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Wait for the final judgment of the RTC and then raise the erroneous admission of evidence as one of the assigned errors on appeal.
The RTC rendered judgment ordering Pedro to pay Juan ₱500,000. The judgment became final and executory. Juan moved for execution. The court then issued a writ of execution directing the sheriff to levy not only Pedro's house (valued at ₱1,000,000) but also his car and bank deposits, even though the judgment only ordered Pedro to pay ₱500,000. Pedro filed a notice of appeal, arguing that the writ varied the judgment and was therefore illegal. Juan countered that an order of execution is never appealable, and Pedro's only remedy is a special civil action for certiorari. Which statement is correct?
Pedro's appeal is proper because the writ of execution materially varied the judgment, making appeal an available remedy aside from certiorari.
Pedro's appeal must be dismissed because orders of execution are never appealable, and the only proper remedy is certiorari under Rule 65.
Pedro has no remedy because the judgment is already final and executory, and execution is ministerial.
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Pedro rendered judgment in two separate cases:
Case A – An ejectment case where the MTC ordered defendant Leo to vacate the property and pay damages.
Case B – A cadastral case involving Lot 567, where the MTC, by authority of the Supreme Court, exercised delegated jurisdiction and declared Maria the lawful owner.
Aggrieved, the losing parties in both cases filed notices of appeal to the RTC. Which statement is correct regarding the appeals?
Both appeals are properly filed with the RTC, because the MTC is always inferior to the RTC regardless of the case.
Only Case A (ejectment) is properly appealable to the RTC. Case B (cadastral case under delegated jurisdiction) should be directly appealed to the Court of Appeals, since MTC judgments in delegated land registration cases are treated like RTC judgments.
Both appeals should be taken directly to the Court of Appeals, since all MTC decisions are subject to Rule 42 petitions for review.
On May 2, the RTC rendered judgment ordering Clara to pay ₱1,000,000 to David. Clara received a copy of the judgment on May 5.
On May 15 (10th day), Clara filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC denied the motion in an order received by Clara on June 1.
On June 10, Clara filed a Notice of Appeal. David opposed, arguing that the appeal was filed out of time because more than 15 days had already lapsed from Clara’s receipt of the RTC judgment on May 5. Was Clara's appeal filed on time?
No, because the 15-day period to appeal started running from May 5 when Clara received the judgment, and more than 15 days had already passed when she filed her Notice of Appeal on June 10.
Yes, because the timely filing of the Motion for Reconsideration interrupted the period to appeal. The 15-day period began to run anew from June 1 when Clara received the denial of her motion, making her June 10 appeal timely.
No, because filing a Motion for Reconsideration does not interrupt the period to appeal. Only a Motion for New Trial can interrupt it.
The RTC is hearing two different matters:
Case A – An ordinary civil action for damages filed by Ramon against Lito. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Ramon. Lito filed a Notice of Appeal without a record on appeal.
Case B – A special proceeding for settlement of the estate of Don Ernesto. The RTC issued an order approving the project of partition. One heir, Ana, filed a Notice of Appeal without a record on appeal. Which of the following statements is correct?
Both Lito and Ana need to file a record on appeal, since a record on appeal is always required in order to perfect an appeal.
Lito's appeal is valid without a record on appeal because it is an ordinary civil action. Ana's appeal is defective without a record on appeal because settlement of estate is a special proceeding that may involve multiple or separate appeals.
Neither Lito nor Ana needs to file a record on appeal because the fresh period rule in Neypes already dispensed with the requirement of a record on appeal.
The RTC of Cebu rendered a decision in its original jurisdiction on a complaint for damages filed by Arturo against Belen. The RTC ruled in favor of Arturo.
Belen wants to appeal, raising both factual and legal issues. Which is the proper mode of appeal?
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, filed directly with the Supreme Court, because only questions of law may be raised.
Ordinary appeal under Rule 41 to the Court of Appeals, by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC, since the case was decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
Petition for Review under Rule 42 to the Court of Appeals, because the RTC judgment is reviewable only by petition for review when questions of fact are involved.
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pasig dismissed Rosa’s complaint for unlawful detainer. On appeal, the RTC, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, reversed the MTC and ruled in Rosa’s favor.
Luis, the losing party, wants to question the RTC’s ruling before the Court of Appeals, raising both factual and legal issues. What is the correct remedy?
Ordinary appeal under Rule 41 by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC.
Petition for Review under Rule 42, filed with the Court of Appeals, because the RTC decided the case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, filed directly with the Supreme Court, since the case involves both factual and legal questions.
The RTC, exercising original jurisdiction, rendered judgment against Marco in a complaint for specific performance. The Court of Appeals, on ordinary appeal, affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
Marco believes the RTC and CA erred only in the interpretation of the law and no longer disputes the factual findings. He now wants to bring the case to the Supreme Court. What is the correct remedy?
Petition for Review under Rule 42 with the Court of Appeals, since both fact and law may be involved.
Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45, by filing a verified petition directly with the Supreme Court, because only questions of law are involved.
Ordinary appeal under Rule 41, by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC, since the RTC exercised original jurisdiction.
The RTC rendered judgment against Noel in a civil case. Noel filed a notice of appeal within the reglementary period. In a separate estate proceeding, the RTC approved a project of partition. One of the heirs, Liza, filed a record on appeal within the reglementary period, but the RTC has not yet approved it. Which of the following is correct?
In Noel's case, the RTC has lost jurisdiction over the entire case upon Noel's timely filing of the notice of appeal. In Liza's case, the RTC has already lost jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal upon her timely filing of the record on appeal.
In Noel's case, the RTC lost jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of Noel's appeal and the expiration of the period to appeal for the other parties. In Liza's case, the RTC retains jurisdiction until the record on appeal is approved and the period to appeal of the other parties has expired.
In both Noel's and Liza's cases, the RTC retains jurisdiction until it transmits the complete original records to the appellate court, regardless of the mode of appeal.
The MTC dismissed an unlawful detainer case filed by Bella against Carlo. On appeal, the RTC, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, reversed the MTC and ruled in favor of Bella. Carlo now wishes to further elevate the case, raising both factual and legal issues. What is the proper remedy?
Ordinary appeal under Rule 41 to the Court of Appeals, by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC.
Petition for Review under Rule 42, filed with the Court of Appeals, because the RTC rendered its judgment in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, because only questions of law may be raised from RTC appellate decisions.
The RTC, acting in its appellate jurisdiction, affirmed the MTC’s ruling against Jaime in an unlawful detainer case. Jaime now wishes to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
He argues that:
The MTC misappreciated the evidence, and
The RTC erred in applying the rule on possession de facto. Jaime now wishes to appeal to the Court of Appeals. He argues that: The MTC misappreciated the evidence, and The RTC erred in applying the rule on possession de facto. Jaime files a Petition for Review under Rule 42, insisting that the CA is bound to give due course because he raised both questions of fact and law. Which is most accurate?
Jaime is correct. The CA must give due course to his Rule 42 petition because he raised both questions of fact and law.
Jaime is wrong. A Rule 42 petition is not a matter of right; the CA has discretion to dismiss it outright unless it shows on its face that the RTC committed errors of fact and/or law warranting review.
Jaime is wrong. He should have filed an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, since the RTC judgment involved both factual and legal issues.
The RTC, acting in its appellate jurisdiction, affirmed the MTC’s judgment against Dina in an unlawful detainer case. Dina wishes to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals through a Petition for Review under Rule 42. Which of the following correctly states the requisites for perfecting her appeal?
She must file a verified Petition for Review with the CA, pay docket and lawful fees, deposit ₱1,000.00 for costs, and furnish copies to the RTC and the adverse party.
She must file a verified Petition for Review with the CA, pay docket and lawful fees, deposit ₱500.00 for costs, and furnish copies to the RTC and the adverse party.
She must file a verified Petition for Review with the RTC, pay docket fees only, and furnish the CA and the adverse party with copies of the petition.
Mario filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 before the Court of Appeals, assailing an RTC decision in its appellate jurisdiction. He, however, (a) forgot to attach a certification against forum shopping, (b) paid the docket fees one week late, and (c) raised only a bare assertion that 'the RTC erred in law' without any legal arguments. The CA, motu proprio, dismissed his petition. Mario now argues that dismissal was improper because appeal is a matter of right. Which is most accurate?
Mario is correct. The CA must give due course to all appeals, and dismissal for technical defects is not allowed.
Mario is wrong. A Rule 42 Petition for Review is discretionary, and the CA may dismiss it outright motu proprio for failure to comply with formal requirements, late payment of docket fees, or if the petition is patently without merit or unsubstantial.
Mario is partly correct. While the CA may dismiss for formal defects, late payment of fees cannot be a ground for dismissal if eventually paid.
The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division rendered a decision against XYZ Corporation on a tax deficiency case. XYZ believes the Division erred in both factual findings and legal conclusions. Which is the correct sequence of remedies available to XYZ?
Directly file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, since CTA decisions are already of appellate rank.
File a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals, since appeals from quasi-judicial agencies normally go to the CA.
File a Motion for Reconsideration with the same CTA Division; if denied, file a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the CTA En Banc; thereafter, appeal to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 on pure questions of law.
ABC Corporation lost before a quasi-judicial agency and filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals, alleging errors of fact and law. The CA noted that the petition complied with all formal requirements. However, the CA is not convinced that the issues raised are substantial enough to justify review. Which statement is most accurate?
The CA has no discretion and must give due course to the petition, since Rule 43 petitions may raise questions of fact, law, or mixed questions.
The CA may dismiss the petition outright because a Rule 43 petition is not a matter of right; it may only be given due course if it shows on its face that the lower court or agency committed errors of fact and/or law warranting review.
The CA must automatically set the case for oral argument once a Rule 43 petition is filed, regardless of whether the petition appears meritorious.
The NLRC awarded ₱5,000,000 in favor of Ramon for illegal dismissal. His employer, XYZ Corp., filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals. XYZ argued that the mere filing of its petition automatically stayed the execution of the NLRC award. Ramon countered that the award is immediately executory unless the CA issues injunctive relief. Who is correct?
XYZ Corp. is correct. An appeal under Rule 43 always stays execution because the case is still under judicial review.
Ramon is correct. A Rule 43 appeal does not stay execution unless the CA issues a temporary restraining order (TRO) or injunctive relief upon proper prayer.
Neither is correct. Under Rule 43, all appealed judgments are final and executory regardless of whether a TRO is issued.
The RTC of Davao, exercising its original jurisdiction, rendered judgment in a case for damages in favor of Leo against Marco. On appeal, Marco insists that he no longer questions the factual findings of the RTC but will only raise the interpretation of Article 2176 of the Civil Code (quasi-delict). What is the proper remedy?
Ordinary appeal under Rule 41 to the Court of Appeals, since the RTC exercised original jurisdiction.
Petition for Review under Rule 42 to the Court of Appeals, since the RTC decision may still involve factual issues.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, since only pure questions of law are being raised.
