This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-02-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought to the CA, under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43. Under the rule, appeals from their judgments and final orders are now brought to the CA on a verified petition for review. This Rule was adopted precisely to provide a uniform rule of appellate procedure from quasi-judicial agencies.[34] | |||||
|
2009-04-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Undeniably, an appeal to the CA may be taken within the reglementary period to appeal whether the appeal involves questions of fact, law, or mixed questions of fact and law. As such, a question of fact or question of law alone or a mix question of fact and law may be appealed to the CA via Rule 43. Thus, in Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development Corporation,[12] we held:According to Section 3 of Rule 43, "[a]n 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." Hence, appeals from quasi-judicial agencies even only on questions of law may be brought to the CA. (emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2008-02-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| However, this Court has already invalidated such provision in Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development Corp.,[13] ruling that a decision of the MAB must first be appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, before recourse to this Court may be had. We held, thus:To summarize, there are sufficient legal footings authorizing a review of the MAB Decision under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. First, Section 30 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, mandates that "[n]o law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and consent." On the other hand, Section 79 of RA No. 7942 provides that decisions of the MAB may be reviewed by this Court on a "petition for review by certiorari." This provision is obviously an expansion of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, an expansion to which this Court has not consented. Indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging the appellate jurisdiction of this Court would unnecessarily burden it. | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| With the enactment of Republic Act No. 7902, this Court issued Circular No. 1-95 dated 16 May 1995 governing appeals from all quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of Appeals by petition for review, regardless of the nature of the question raised. Said circular was incorporated in Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[25] In addition, this Court held in a line of cases that appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial bodies are required to be brought to the Court of Appeals, under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[26] Nevertheless, this Court has taken into account the fact that these cases were promulgated after the petitioner filed this appeal on 4 August 1997, and decided to take cognizance of the present case. | |||||
|
2003-07-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In their joint comment,[12] respondent lawyers averred that their filing of the petition before the appellate court was a legitimate move to protect the interests of their clients. They contended that while the Secretary of Justice is not among the quasi-judicial agencies whose orders or judgments may be the subject of a petition for review, the enumeration in Rule 43, Section 2 of the Rules of Court is not exclusive, as held in the case of Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development Corporation.[13] They further alleged that any error in the remedy they chose did not render them administratively liable considering that they did not act in bad faith. | |||||