Issues to be raised

Issues to be raised | Appeal | Post-judgment Remedies | CIVIL PROCEDURE

ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL UNDER PHILIPPINE CIVIL PROCEDURE
(Remedial Law, Legal Ethics & Legal Forms > III. Civil Procedure > U. Post-judgment Remedies > 3. Appeal > f. Issues to be raised)

I. OVERVIEW OF APPEAL UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

  1. Nature of Appeal

    • An appeal is a statutory remedy that allows an aggrieved party to seek a higher court’s review of a judgment or final order of a lower court or tribunal.
    • It is not a matter of right except when expressly allowed by law or the rules; it is governed strictly by the Rules of Court and pertinent statutes (e.g., the Judiciary Reorganization Act, statutes creating special courts, etc.).

  2. Governing Rules

    • Primary source: Rules of Court, particularly:
      • Rule 41: Appeal from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals
      • Rule 42: Petition for Review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals
      • Rule 43: Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals, quasi-judicial agencies, etc., to the Court of Appeals
      • Rule 45: Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court

  3. Scope of an Appeal

    • Depending on the mode of appeal, the issues may be confined to questions of law, questions of fact, or both. For instance:
      • Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court) generally allows only questions of law to be raised.
      • Rule 41 and Rule 42 (Appeals to the Court of Appeals) allow both factual and legal questions to be reviewed, subject to specific limitations.
      • Rule 43 (Appeal from quasi-judicial agencies) similarly involves factual and legal questions, subject to the standard of review.

II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES ON WHAT ISSUES MAY BE RAISED ON APPEAL

  1. Issues Raised in the Trial Court

    • General Rule: Only questions of fact or law that have been raised before the trial court and assigned as errors in the appellate brief may be reviewed by the appellate court.
    • Rationale: To respect the trial process and afford the lower court an opportunity to rule upon the matters in controversy.

  2. Exceptions

    • Despite the general rule, there are recognized exceptions where an appellate court can consider issues not previously raised or assigned as error. Examples include:
      1. Matters of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court’s jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, even for the first time on appeal.
      2. Issues of public policy or public interest where the appellate court deems it necessary for the correct and just resolution of the case.
      3. Errors affecting the validity of the judgment itself (e.g., absence of due process).
      4. When the issue is intimately related to an error properly raised and it is necessary for a complete determination of the case or to arrive at a just decision.
      5. Plain error doctrine: An obvious error that would prejudice the substantive rights of the parties may be considered even if not raised.

  3. Unassigned Errors but Related to the Assigned Errors

    • The appellate court, in the interest of justice, has the discretion to decide on issues unassigned yet closely related or necessary to fully dispose of the issues that have been raised.
    • Courts have the prerogative to review the entire case and may correct errors that are apparent on the face of the record if it would result in a miscarriage of justice to do otherwise.

III. DISTINCTIONS: QUESTIONS OF LAW VS. QUESTIONS OF FACT

  1. Question of Law

    • Exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; or when the issue is about the correct application or interpretation of the law.
    • In a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, only questions of law may be raised, subject to very limited exceptions.

  2. Question of Fact

    • Exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts; typically involves the re-examination of the probative value of evidence.
    • The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and thus, in appeals brought under Rule 45, purely factual questions are generally outside its scope.
    • The Court of Appeals (in Rule 41 or Rule 42 appeals) can review questions of fact, as well as questions of law.

  3. Mixed Question of Law and Fact

    • Occurs when the issue requires the application of law to a particular set of facts.
    • Depending on the mode of appeal, mixed questions may still be subject to review, particularly at the Court of Appeals level. However, once it reaches the Supreme Court via Rule 45, the review generally narrows to pure questions of law unless there is an applicable exception.

IV. MODES OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUES PROPERLY RAISED

  1. Rule 41: Ordinary Appeal (From the RTC to the Court of Appeals)

    • Applies when a decision or final order is rendered by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
    • The appeal is initiated by Notice of Appeal or Record on Appeal, depending on whether multiple appeals are involved (e.g., cases involving partition or accounting).
    • The appellate court may review both factual and legal issues.
    • Assigned Errors in the Appellant’s Brief – these must be specified under Rule 44, along with the Statement of the Case, Statement of Facts, and Argument.

  2. Rule 42: Petition for Review (From the RTC to the Court of Appeals)

    • Generally used if the RTC acted in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (e.g., appeals from the MTC).
    • The petitioner may raise both questions of fact and law in the Petition for Review, within the scope of the RTC’s prior review.

  3. Rule 43: Appeal from Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals

    • Covers appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals (in certain cases), Civil Service Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, NLRC (in certain instances), and other quasi-judicial bodies as specified by law.
    • Both factual and legal questions can be reviewed, subject to the applicable standard of review.
    • Issues that were properly raised during the administrative proceedings (and subsequently in the petition at the RTC or CA level) are those typically considered.

  4. Rule 45: Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court

    • This is discretionary and limited primarily to questions of law.
    • The Supreme Court does not re-examine the evidence or weigh credibility, with very narrow exceptions:
      1. When the Court of Appeals (or lower court) fails to make certain factual findings that are essential for determining the legal questions.
      2. When there is a conflict in the factual findings of the lower courts or tribunals.
      3. When the findings of fact are devoid of support in the records or are based on misapprehension of facts.
      4. When the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible.
      5. When the CA’s findings of fact and those of the trial court are conflicting.
      6. When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts or overlooked relevant facts.
      7. When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
    • Key Point: Petitioner must strictly show that the issue is a pure question of law or falls under these exceptions.

V. STANDARDS OF REVIEW FOR THE APPELLATE COURT

  1. De Novo Review of Legal Issues

    • Appellate courts have plenary authority to determine whether the lower court correctly applied the law or jurisprudence to the set of facts.
    • As a general rule, no special deference is accorded to a lower court’s interpretation of the law.

  2. Factual Findings

    • The trial court’s factual findings are accorded great respect, especially when supported by substantial evidence. The rationale is that the trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor of witnesses.
    • The Court of Appeals may reverse or modify factual findings when there is a clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misapplied material facts, or that a misinterpretation of evidence occurred.
    • The Supreme Court’s review of facts is limited, as mentioned, by the general rule that it is not a trier of facts and will not disturb findings of fact unless they fall under well-recognized exceptions.

  3. Harmless Error Doctrine

    • Even if an error is properly raised, the appellate court will not reverse a decision if the error was harmless and did not prejudice the substantial rights of the party.

VI. PROCESS OF RAISING ISSUES IN APPELLANT’S AND APPELLEE’S BRIEFS

  1. Appellant’s Brief

    • Must contain:
      1. A Subject Index of the matter in the brief;
      2. A Statement of the Case and Statement of Facts;
      3. A Statement of the Issues or Errors Assigned;
      4. The Arguments discussing each issue or error; and
      5. A Prayer specifying the relief sought.
    • Errors not assigned in the brief are generally considered waived, barring exceptions previously mentioned.

  2. Appellee’s Brief

    • Must respond to the assigned errors in the appellant’s brief and may include additional matters to sustain the judgment if needed.
    • Appellee may also raise additional arguments in support of the judgment but cannot ordinarily assign new errors unless it files its own appeal or protective appeal.

  3. Reply Brief

    • Optional, filed by the appellant to address new matters raised in the appellee’s brief.

VII. RAISING NEW ISSUES FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL

  1. General Prohibition

    • Courts will not entertain issues that parties failed to raise in the trial court.
    • This rule promotes fairness: the opposing party should have an opportunity to present evidence on all relevant issues.

  2. Recognized Exceptions

    • Jurisdictional Issues: The court’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage, even for the first time on appeal.
    • Purely Legal Questions: Sometimes, if the question can be resolved without need for further factual development and is decisive of the case, the appellate court may entertain it.
    • Fundamental or Plain Error: If ignoring the error would amount to a denial of due process or is contrary to public interest, the appellate court may address it.

VIII. STRATEGIC AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN RAISING ISSUES

  1. Duty of Candor and Good Faith

    • Counsel must ensure that the issues raised on appeal have factual and legal bases; frivolous appeals or those meant to delay can subject counsel to sanctions.
    • The duty to the court requires accurate representation of the facts and relevant jurisprudence.

  2. Selecting Issues to Raise

    • Issue Overload is discouraged. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have admonished counsel not to raise a multitude of issues that dilute the strength of meritorious ones.
    • Strong, well-focused assignments of error are typically more persuasive.

  3. Compliance with Rules and Deadlines

    • Strict adherence to the Rules of Court and internal rules of the appellate courts is crucial. Raising an issue out of time or failing to include it in the assigned errors typically leads to waiver, absent extraordinary circumstances.

  4. Effect of Filing a Motion for Reconsideration

    • Often, a motion for reconsideration in the trial court or appellate court is required prior to elevating the matter further, especially on newly discovered issues or errors. This allows the lower court an opportunity to correct itself.
    • In some instances, failing to raise certain issues in a motion for reconsideration can waive them on further appeal, unless it involves jurisdictional or fundamental errors.

IX. KEY TAKEAWAYS

  1. Identify the Applicable Mode of Appeal

    • Determine if you are appealing to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, whether it involves only questions of law or both factual and legal questions.

  2. Assign Errors Properly

    • Enumerate each error that you want the appellate court to review. Ensure that they were sufficiently brought up in the lower court unless an exception applies.

  3. Observe the Exceptions to the General Rule

    • Jurisdictional issues, errors of public interest, fundamental errors, or issues intimately related to assigned errors may be taken up even if not raised in the trial court.

  4. Follow the Formal Requirements

    • For briefs, petitions, or memoranda, comply meticulously with the required contents, statements of facts, legal citations, and arguments. Non-compliance can result in outright dismissal.

  5. Maintain Professional Responsibility

    • Raise only meritorious issues, ensuring integrity, candor, and faithful adherence to the ethical rules. Unnecessary delays and frivolous appeals are frowned upon and can be sanctioned.

X. REFERENCES (FOR FURTHER READING)

  • 1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) (provides for the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction).
  • Rules of Court, specifically:
    • Rule 41 (Appeal from the RTC to the CA)
    • Rule 42 (Petition for Review from the RTC to the CA)
    • Rule 43 (Appeal from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA)
    • Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court)
    • Rule 44, Rule 46, Rule 50-52 (procedures on briefs, dismissals, motions for reconsideration, etc.)
  • Relevant Jurisprudence
    • Heirs of Villagracia v. Equitable PCIBank, Inc. – on issues not raised in the court a quo.
    • Medado v. CA, G.R. No. 108251 – on the scope of appeal and matters that can be reviewed.
    • Mature v. People, G.R. No. (various) – on the distinction between questions of fact and law.

CONCLUSION
When appealing a civil case in the Philippines, it is crucial to understand precisely which issues may be validly raised, how to properly assign errors, and the circumstances under which unassigned or new issues can still be entertained. Mastery of these rules ensures that an appeal is both procedurally compliant and substantively persuasive, thereby upholding the fair administration of justice.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login