Appeals on Pure Questions of Law: An Outline

One’s knee-jerk reaction to questions regarding appeals which raise only questions of law is to answer that they should be brought to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari.  However, there are a few nuances which the bar reviewee and the law practitioner should take note of.  Below is an outline of the rules governing appeals on pure questions of law.

Basic laws on appeals raising only questions of law

Since appeal is a substantive right which involves the appellate jurisdiction of a court, it must be anchored upon a statute. 

Section 17 (subparagraph 4 of paragraph 4) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 provides that the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review final judgments and decrees of lower courts in which only errors or questions of law are involved.  This is complemented by Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 which provides that the Court of Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over judgments and final orders of RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 4, paragraph 4 of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act.

The Constitution itself provides that the Supreme Court has the power to review on appeal or certiorari judgments and final orders of lower courts in “[a]ll cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.” (Sec. 5[2][e], Art. VIII). 

Appeal from MTC

An appeal from a judgment or final order of the MTC, even if it raises only questions of law, is taken to the RTC pursuant to Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.  Section 22 of B.P. Blg. 129 provides that RTCs shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTCs without providing for any exclusion for appeals raising pure questions of law.

Appeal from RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction

In civil cases, an appeal on pure questions of law from an RTC judgment or final order rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is taken to the Supreme Court which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction.  This is pursuant to Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which provides that “[i]n 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.”  Section 2(c) of Rule 41 in turn implements subparagraph 4, paragraph 4 of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.  Also, Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, which lays down the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA, has an exclusionary clause for appeals which raise only questions of law.  Thus, an appeal to the CA raising only questions of law from an RTC judgment rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be dismissed for being an improper appeal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

The rule is different however with respect to criminal cases.  An appeal on pure questions of law from an RTC judgment or final order rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may be taken either to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari or to the Court of Appeals by way of a notice of appeal, pursuant to Section 3(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Tan v. People, 381 SCRA 74 [e.b., 2002]).  Evidently, it would be much better for an accused to bring the appeal to the CA since he would have another shot in case of denial.  Moreover, an ordinary appeal is a matter of right unlike appeal under Rule 45 which is a matter of discretion. 

Appeal from RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction

In civil cases, an appeal on pure questions of law from an RTC judgment or final order rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is taken to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 42.  Section 2 of Rule 42 provides that the petition for review may specify “errors of fact or law, or both.”  (See Tan v. People, supra; 2 FLORENZ D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 516 [7^th rev. ed., 1999]). 

It is submitted that the appeal may also be taken directly to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Section 2(c) of Rule 41 which states that “[i]n 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.” Again, it would be better, however, for an appellant to elevate the case to the CA so that he will have another shot in case of denial.

In criminal cases, an appeal on pure questions of law from an RTC judgment or final order rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may be taken either to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari or to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 42. (See Tan v. People, supra; Section 3[b], Rule 122, Rules of Criminal Procedure). 

Appeal from Quasi-Judicial Agency

An appeal on pure questions of law from a judgment or final order of a quasi-judicial agency is taken to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43.  Section 3 of Rule 43 provides that an appeal under Rule 43 may be taken to the Court of Appeals “whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.” (See also 2 FLORENZ D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 523-524 [7^th rev. ed., 1999]). 

It is submitted that the appeal may also be taken directly to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 which provides that the Court of Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under sub-paragraph 4, paragraph 4 of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

-oOo-