iv. Appeal from Quasi-judicial Agencies to CA (Rule 43)

Review by the CA of the Secretary of DOJ’s finding of probable cause under Rule 65.

Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts have no right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government, or to substitute their own judgments for that of the Executive Branch, represented in this case by the Department of Justice.

Courts will not interfere with the executive determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. That abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. (Callo-Claridad v. Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, 2013)

NOTE: A Rule 43 petition is not allowed since the Secretary is not acting in a quasi-judicial function when reviewing the investigating prosecutor’s resolution. (Callo-Claridad v. Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, 2013)

NOTE: If the penalty for the offense is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the remedy from the DOJ is appeal to the Office of the President. From the OP, the remedy is appeal to the CA under Rule 43.

NOTE: The Court declared in Santos-Dio v. CA that while a judge's determination of probable cause is generally confined to the limited purpose of issuing arrest warrants, he is nonetheless authorized under Section 5 (a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. A judge may dismiss the case for lack of probable cause only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to establish probable cause - that is when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. (Young v. People, G.R. No. 213910, 2016)

Appeals from the decision of the Office of the President

The appellant may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 in the event of an adverse decision within fifteen (15) days from notice of the final order of the Office of the President.

The party aggrieved by the final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals may avail of an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals, Civil Service Commission, and Quasi-Judicial Agencies (Rule 43)

Rule 43 shall apply to appeals from awards, judgments, final orders, resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions:

• Civil Service Commission (see Special Rules and the end of this subsection)
• Central Board of Assessment Appeals.
• Securities and Exchange Commission.
• Office of the President.

Note: The parties may file a motion for reconsideration of the order, ruling, or decision of the OP. Since the OP is essentially an administrative agency exercising quasi-judicial functions, its decisions or resolutions may be appealed to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Rule 65 bars its use as a mode of review when an appeal or any other remedy at law is available (subject to exceptions). It is absolutely incorrect to claim that Rule 43 does not allow an immediate remedy if that had been the result desired. Section 12 of Rule 43 expressly allows the CA to order a stay of execution upon such terms as are just. Separately from Section 12, Rule 43 is Rule 58 on injunction as a provisional remedy that could have been used, with proper supporting justification, to stay the implementation of the OP decision. (PBA vs. Gaite, G.R. No. 170312, 2009)

• 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.
• Dept. of Agrarian Reform under R.A. No. 6657.

Note: Sec. 1 of Rule XIV of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure dwells on how appeals to the DARAB Board from the decisions, resolutions or final orders of the Adjudicator are to be taken. How petitioners could have been misled to file their appeal from the DARAB’s Decision to the Court of Appeals via certiorari escapes comprehension. (Po vs. Mutia, G.R. No. 173329, 2009)

• Government Service Insurance System.
• Employees Compensation Commission.
• Agricultural Invention Board.
• Insurance Commission.
• Philippine Atomic Energy Commission.
• Board of Investments.
• Construction Industry Arbitration Commission; and
• Voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.

Note: The decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in line with the procedure outlines in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (now embodied in Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC), just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein, and consistent with the original purpose to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities. On some occasions, rules of procedure may be relaxed and on that basis the Court of Appeals could have treated the petition for certiorari as a petition for review under Rule 43. (N.B.: In this case, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review under Rule 43.) It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is a cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been repeatedly stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. (Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt vs. Bacungan, G.R. No. 149050, 2009)

The enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies is NOT exclusive.

The Office of the Prosecutor is NOT a quasijudicial body and its action approving the filing of an information is not appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.

The CTA is on the level of the CA and thus not covered by Rule 43.

Steps to determine coverage of Rule 43:

• See listing in Sec. 1
• Determine if it is a decision in a quasi-judicial function
• If it is a decision in quasi-judicial function, follow rules on appeals, so only final order/decisions are appealable
• If agency is not listed in Sec. 1, look at the charter or rules that govern such administrative agency:
• If explicitly states that Rule 43 applies – file a Rule 43
• If only stating that decisions are appealable – file a Rule 43

Applicability to SEC

Special rules of procedure have also been adopted for cases formerly within the jurisdiction and adjudicatory processes of the Securities and Exchange Commission. (See Regalado 10th ed. P. 573) The Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 04-9-07- SC as a clarification on the proper mode of appeal of cases which were formerly under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission, such as those cases involving corporate rehabilitation. Now, there is no more need to file a notice of appeal and record on appeal. An appeal may now be perfected by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or final order of the trial court, directly to the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. (China Banking Corp. vs. Cebu Printing, G.R. No. 172880, 2010)

SPECIAL RULES when appealing from judgments and final orders of CSC, DOJ, NLRC, Office of the Ombudsman, and Secretary of Labor

Where to appeal

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. (Rule 43, Sec. 3)

This is another instance where an appellate review solely on a question of law may be brought to the Court of Appeals instead of the Supreme Court. The same procedure obtains in appeals from the Regional Trial Court where it decided the case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as regulated by Rule 42.

The two (2) EXCEPTIONS to the general rule that appeals on pure questions of law are brought to the Supreme Court (Section 5[2][e], Art VIII) are Rules 42 and 43.

Updated: Review of a CIAC arbitral award is generally limited to questions of law, with factual findings reviewable only when an issue concerning the tribunal’s integrity amounts to grave abuse of discretion (Roxaco-Asia Hospitality Corporation v. Gulf Canary Construction, G.R. Nos. 246250-51, 29 September 2025).

Period of appeal

Within 15 days from:

• Notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution; or
• Date of last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity; or
• Denial of petitioner’s Motion for New Trial or Motion for Reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. (Rule 43, Sec. 4)

Only ONE (1) MR shall be allowed.

Note: Rule 43, Section 4 specifically allows only one motion for reconsideration to an appealing party; as such, the reckoning of the fifteen (15)-day period to perfect the appeal starts from the receipt of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. (Yinlu Bicol Mining Corporation v. Trans-Asia Oil and Energy Development Corporation, G.R. No. 207942, 2015)

Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review.

No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed 15 days

How appeal taken

REQUISITES:

• A verified petition for review:
• File with the Court of Appeals in seven 3 legible copies (per Efficient Use of Paper Rule, A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC).
• Attach proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo.
• Pay to the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals the docket and other lawful fees and deposit P500.00 for costs.
• Exemption from payment of docket and lawful fees may be granted by the Court of Appeals upon a verified motion setting forth the valid grounds therefor.
• If the Court of Appeals denies the motion, petitioner shall pay the docket and other lawful fees within 15 days from notice of denial. (Rule 43, Sec. 5)

Contents of the petition

The petition for review shall contain:

• Full names of the parties, without impleading the court/agencies either as petitioners or respondents.
• Concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for review.
• Clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with:
• Certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein.
• Other supporting papers;
• Certificate of non-forum shopping.
• Material dates to show it was filed within the period fixed therein. (Rule 43, Sec. 6)

Sec. 6 of Rule 43 does not require that all of the supporting papers or annexes accompanying the petition should be certified true copies or duplicate originals. What is mandatory is to attach the clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the judgment or final orders of the lower courts. (Jaro v. CA, G.R. No. 127536, 2002)

Contents of comment

Requisites of the comment of the respondent:

• File in 3 legible copies (per Efficient Use of Paper Rule, A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC).
• Accompanied by clearly legible certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein together with the supporting papers.
• Point out insufficiencies or inaccuracies in petitioner’s statement of facts and issues
• State the reasons why the petition should be denied or dismissed; and
• File within 10 days from notice. (Rule 43, Sec. 9)

A copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner and proof of such service shall be filed with the Court of Appeals.

The appellate court may also require the filing of a reply, but further submissions are governed by the resolution in A.M. No. 99-2-04.

The appeal shall not stay the award, final order, or resolution sought to be reviewed UNLESS the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.

Due course

If from the records the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the court or agency committed errors of fact or law that would warrant a reversal or modification of the decision sought to be reviewed, it may give due course to the petition. Otherwise, it shall dismiss the same.

The findings of fact of the court or agency concerned, when supported by substantial evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals. (Rule 43, Sec. 10)

Effect of appeal

General Rule: The appeal shall not stay the award, final order, or resolution sought to be reviewed

Exception: When the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just. (Rule 43, Sec. 12)