DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

The instant petition is a direct recourse to this Court from the assailed orders of the RTC.
Notably, petitioners did not cite the rule under the Rules of Court by which the petition was filed.
If the petition is to be treated as a petition filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petition
must be dismissed outright for having been filed prematurely.

In Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. (CREBA) v. Secretary of

Agrarian Reform,[12] a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 was dismissed for having been
filed directly with the Court, violating the principle of hierarchy of courts, to wit:

Primarily, although this Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial
Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does
not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. In Heirs of
Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor, citing People v. Cuaresma, this Court made the
following pronouncements:

This Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not

exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts and with
the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however,
to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an
absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which
application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of
courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also
serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for
the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy
most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of
extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed
with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the
Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original
jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are
special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out
in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to
prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are
better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to
prevent further over-crowding of the Courts docket. (Emphasis supplied.)

Similarly, there are no special and important reasons that petitioners cite to justify their
direct recourse to this Court under Rule 65.

On the other hand, direct recourse to this Court has been allowed for petitions filed under
Rule 45 when only questions of law are raised, as in this case. Thus, the Court ruled in Barcenas
v. Tomas:[13]

Section 1 of Rule 45 clearly states that the following may be appealed to

the Supreme Court through a petition for review by certiorari: 1) judgments; 2)
final orders; or 3) resolutions of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Regional Trial Court or similar courts, whenever authorized by law. The appeal
must involve only questions of law, not of fact.

This Court has, time and time again, pointed out that it is not a trier of
facts; and that, save for a few exceptional instances, its function is not to analyze
or weigh all over again the factual findings of the lower courts. There is a
 2

question of law when doubts or differences arise as to what law pertains to a

certain state of facts, and a question of fact when the doubt pertains to the truth or
falsity of alleged facts.

Under the principle of the hierarchy of courts, decisions, final orders or

resolutions of an MTC should be appealed to the RTC exercising territorial
jurisdiction over the former. On the other hand, RTC judgments, final orders or
resolutions are appealable to the CA through either of the following: an ordinary
appeal if the case was originally decided by the RTC; or a petition for review
under Rule 42, if the case was decided under the RTC's appellate jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, a direct recourse to this Court can be taken for a review of

the decisions, final orders or resolutions of the RTC, but only on questions of law.
Under Section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the
power to

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or

certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments
and orders of lower courts in:

xxxx

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

This kind of direct appeal to this Court of RTC judgments, final orders or
resolutions is provided for in Section 2(c) of Rule 41, which reads:

SEC. 2. Modes of appeal.

xxxx

(c) Appeal by certiorari.In all cases where only questions of law

are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition
for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.

Procedurally then, petitioners could have appealed the RTC Decision

affirming the MTC (1) to this Court on questions of law only; or (2) if there
are factual questions involved, to the CA -- as they in fact did. Unfortunately for
petitioners, the CA properly dismissed their petition for review because of serious
procedural defects. This action foreclosed their only available avenue for the
review of the factual findings of the RTC. (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, the Court shall exercise liberality and consider the instant petition as one filed
under Rule 45. In Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowners Association, Inc.,
[14]
citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court noted that it has the discretion to determine
whether a petition was filed under Rule 45 or 65 of the Rules of Court:

Admittedly, this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the
Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition
for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed within the
reglementary period for filing a petition for review.
 3

MENDOZA vs. MAYOR VILLAS, G.R. No. 187256, February 23, 2011

Petitioners interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals but it was dismissed for being the wrong
mode of appeal. The appellate court held that since the issue being raised is whether the RTC has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, which is a question of law, the appeal should
have been elevated to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended.

Section 2, Rule 41 of the same Rules which governs appeals from judgments and final orders of
the RTC to the Court of Appeals, provides:

SEC. 2. Modes of appeal.

(a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by
filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on
appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple
or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the
record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
(b) Petition for review. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by
petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.
(c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions of law are raised or
involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.

In Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [2] we summarized
the rule on appeals as follows:

(1) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, appeal may
be made to the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal where the appellant raises
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law;

(2) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction where the
appellant raises only questions of law, the appeal must be taken to the Supreme
Court on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

(3) All appeals from judgments rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, regardless of whether the appellant raises questions of fact, questions
of law, or mixed questions of fact and law, shall be brought to the Court of Appeals
by filing a petition for review under Rule 42.

It is not disputed that the issue brought by petitioners to the Court of Appeals involves the
jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter of the case. We have a long standing rule that a
 4

courts jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is conferred only by the Constitution or by
statute.[3] Otherwise put, jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of
law.[4] Consequently, issues which deal with the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of
a case are pure questions of law. As petitioners appeal solely involves a question of law, they
should have directly taken their appeal to this Court by filing a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45, not an ordinary appeal with the Court of Appeals under Rule
41. Clearly, the appellate court did not err in holding that petitioners pursued the wrong mode of
appeal.

Indeed, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing petitioners appeal. Section 2, Rule
50 of the same Rules provides that an appeal from the RTC to the Court of Appeals raising only
questions of law shall be dismissed; and that an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals
shall be dismissed outright, thus:

Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. An appeal

under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising
only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues of pure law not
being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of
by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall
be dismissed.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be
transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The questioned Resolution of the Court of

Appeals (Third Division) in CA-G.R. CV No. 63608 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SEVILLENO vs. CARILO, G.R. No. 146454, September 14, 2007

We stress that in reviews on certiorari the Court addresses only the questions of law. It is not our
function to analyze or weigh the evidence (which tasks belong to the trial court as the trier of
facts and to the appellate court as the reviewer of facts). We are confined to the review of errors
of law that may have been committed in the judgment under review.16
In Madrigal v. Court of Appeals,17 we had occasion to stress this rule in these words:
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been
committed by the lower court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It leaves these matters to
the lower court, which [has] more opportunity and facilities to examine these matters. This same
Court has declared that it is the policy of the Court to defer to the factual findings of the trial
judge, who has the advantage of directly observing the witnesses on the stand and to determine
their demeanor whether they are telling or distorting the truth.
And again in Remalante v. Tibe (158 SCRA 138 [1988]):
The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases
 5

brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law
imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive." [Chan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
27488, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 737, reiterating a long line of decisions]. This Court has
emphatically declared that "it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such
evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have
been committed by the lower court" [Tiongco v. De la Merced, G.R. No. L-24426, July 25, 1974,
58 SCRA 89;
Corona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62482, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 865; Banigued v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47531, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 596]. [italics supplied]
We repeated this ruling in Suarez v. Judge Villarama, Jr.,18 this time giving the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts as our additional reason.
It is axiomatic that a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of
the alleged facts.
In the instant case, petitioner brought this petition for review on certiorari raising mixed
questions of fact and law. She impugns the decision of the RTC dismissing her complaint for
failure to prosecute. The In the instant case, petitioner brought this petition for review on
certiorari raising mixed questions of fact and law. She impugns the decision of the RTC
dismissing her complaint for failure to prosecute. The resolution of the propriety of dismissal
entails a review of the factual circumstances that led the trial court to decide in such manner. On
the other hand, petitioner also questions the lower court’s denial of her motion for
reconsideration on the ground that it was filed out of time. There is indeed a question as to what
and how the law should be applied. Therefore, petitioner should have brought this case to the
Court of Appeals via the first mode of appeal under the aegis of Rule 41. Section 4 of Circular
No. 2-90, in effect at the time of the antecedents, provides that an appeal taken to either the
Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong mode or inappropriate mode shall be
dismissed. This rule is now incorporated in Section 5, Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Moreover, the filing of the case directly with this Court runs afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts. Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court will
not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. This
Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions
assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition. Thus, a petition for review on
certiorari assailing the decision involving both questions of fact and law must first be brought
before the Court of Appeals. [italics supplied, emphases ours; citations omitted]

FAR EASTERN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. INC. vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 170618, November 20, 2013