Specific Jurisdiction of the COURT OF APPEALS

BP 129, Sec. 9., as am. by R. A. 7092
1. The Intermediate Appellate Court shall exercise:
  1. (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs and processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
  2. (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and
  3. (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial Court 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 Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under PD No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of paragraph (1) of the third paragraph and paragraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
2. The Court of Appeals shall have the power:
  1. to try cases and conduct hearings,
  2. to receive evidence, and
  3. to perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials and hearings must be continuous and must be completed within three months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.
1987 Consti, Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. 2 (e)
1. The SC shall have the following powers: x x x (5) 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:
  1. (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
  2. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto;
  3. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;
  4. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher;
  5. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
Rule 43 (Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals)
1. NOTE: This Rule does not conflict with Art. IX-A, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the SC to review on certiorari any decision, ruling or order of constitutional commissions. The same provision states that the case may be brought to the SC UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS CONSTITUTION OR BY LAW. Rule 43 is law that constitutes an exception.
2. Section 1. Scope.
  1. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals
  2. and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its judicial functions.
  3. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under RA No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
3. Section 2. Cases not covered.
  1. This Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines.
4. Section 3. Where to appeal.
  1. An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
PD 442, as am. by R. A. 6715 (Labor Code of the Philippines)
St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC (1998)
1. R. A. No. 7902 (effective 18 March 1995) amended BP No. 129, Sec. 9, which now provides that the CA shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all adjudications of the RTCs and QJ agencies, EXCEPT THOSE FALLING WITHIN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SC IN ACCORDANCE WITH x x x THE LABOR CODE x x x thus, suggesting that only the SC may review decisions of the NLRC.
2. Legislative records show, however, that there may have been an oversight during deliberations on R. A. 7902 or imprecision in the terminology used. The legislative intent of the amendment was to ease the SC of a substantial amount of workload, but SB No. 1485 (which introduced the amendment and was passed on second and third readings), adds the phrase "LABOR CODE," instead of removing it.
  1. Quoting J. Teehankee, Sen. Raul Roco said in his sponsorship speech: "Amended legislation is suggested so as to relieve the SC of the burden of reviewing these cases which present no important issues involved beyond the particular fact and the parties involved, so that the SC may wholly devote its time to cases of public interest x x x and additional task expressly vested on it now "to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction..." (which the SC decides under Rule 65 in petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus).
3. The use of the phrase "appellate jurisdiction of the SC" in relation to the judicial review of decisions of the NLRC could have been a lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari (Rule 45) and original action for certiorari (Rule 65) are both modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts (SC and CA).
4. Contrary to the assumption that recourse from the NLRC to the CA would be circuitous, to allow the appeal from the NLRC to the CA would give litigants the advantage to have all the evidence on record reexamined and reweighed, after which the findings of fact and conclusions of said bodies are correspondingly affirmed, modified or reversed.
  1. With a disclaimer, the SC notes that there is a growing number of labor cases being elevated before it, which, not being a trier of fact, has at times been constrained to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of ambiguous or unclear factual findings; that the CA is procedurally equipped for that purpose; and that there is an imperative for expeditious action on labor cases as an aspect of consti protection to labor.
5. Therefore, all references in the amended Sec. 9 of BP 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the SC are interpreted to mean petitions for certiorari (or original action for certiorari) under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should be initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the hierarchy of the courts.
  1. Apropos to this conclusion was a pronouncement in Santiago vs. Vasquez: "A propensity on the part of petitioner x x x to disregard the hierarchy of courts x x x by seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact that the same is available in the lower courts x x x must be stopped, not only because of the imposition on the precious time of this Court but also because of the inevitable and resultant delay in the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum x x x.
SC Resol. A. M. No. 99-2-01 (In Re: Dismissal of Special Civil Actions in NLRC Cases)
1. In light of the decision in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC (16 September 1998), all special civil actions arising out of any decision or final resolution or order of the National Labor Relations Commission filed with the Court after 1 June 1999 shall no longer be referred to the Court of Appeals, but shall forthwith be dismissed.
SC A. M. 7-7-12 (December 4, 2007)
1. To further amend Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure x x x Sec. 4. When and where petition filed.
  1. The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the 60 day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
  2. The petition shall be filed in the SC,
    1. or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the SC.
    2. It may also be filed in the CA whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction,
    3. or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
    4. if it involves the acts or omission of a quasi judicial agency, UNLESS otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the CA.
  3. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days.