Z.

GARCIA Block C 2017

of Riano
Exclusive Original
Jurisdiction
CPM against:
1. CA
2. COMELEC
3. C. Audit
4. Sandiganbayan
5. CTA

Civil Procedure | Atty. Aquino | Based on the book

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Concurrent original
Concurrent original
Concurrent original
jurisdiction with the
jurisdiction with the
jurisdiction with the
CA*
CA and the RTC*
RTC
CPM against:
CPM against:
Cases affecting:
1. RTC
1. Lower courts and
1. Ambassadors
2. CSC
bodies
2. Public Ministers
3. Central Board of
Petitions:
3. Consuls
Assessment
2. Quo Warranto
Appeals
3. Habeas Corpus
4. NLRC
5. Other quasijudicial agencies

Appellate jurisdiction
By way of petition for
review on certiorari
(Rule 45) against:
1. CA
2. CTA
3. Sandiganbayan
4. RTC on pure
questions of law
Cases involving
constitutionality or
validity of:
1. Law
2. Treaty
3. International or
Executive
Agreement
4. PD
5. Proclamation
6. Order
7. Instruction
8. Ordinance
9. Regulation
Legality of:
1. Tax
2. Impost
3. Assessment
4. Toll or Penalty
5. Jurisdiction of
lower court
CTA decisions rendered

Z. GARCIA Block C 2017

of Riano

Civil Procedure | Atty. Aquino | Based on the book

en banc

*Subject to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Court

The SC is not a trier of facts
Passing upon a factual issue is not within the province
of the SC.
Finding of facts of the CA are NOT generally
reviewable by the SC.
Factual finding of the trial court, particularly when
affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on the SC.
Only questions of law may be entertained by the SC in
petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Questions of fact are not reviewable.
N.B. Factual issues may be delved into and resolved
where the findings and conclusions of the trial court of
the quasi-judicial bodies are frontally inconsistent with
the findings of the CA
Question of Law
Where the issue raised is whether or not a court has
the power or authority to hear and determine a cause
OR
When the issue concerns the correct interpretation or
application of relevant laws and rules
Questions of Fact examples
W/N there is sufficient evidence to support a
conclusion that there was falsification of public
documents
A challenge against the findings of the CA that
petitioner had homicidal intent when he hacked the
victim with a scythe and that the wounds the latter
sustained could have caused his death had there been
no prompt medical intervention.

Exceptions:
(Findings SCITES, JIGFO)
1. Findings grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
or conjectures
2. Findings of facts are conflicting
3. In making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues
of the case or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee
4. Findings are contrary to those of the trial court
5. Findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based
6. Findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
on record
7. Judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts
8. The inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd,
or impossible
9. Grave abuse of discretion
10.
When the facts set forth in the petition, as well
as in the petitioners main and reply briefs, are not
disputed by respondent
11.
When the CA manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, could justify a different
conclusion
Original cases cognizable by the SC
1. Sec. 1, Rule 56
a. Certiorari
b. Prohibition
c. Mandamus
d. Quo Warranto

Z. GARCIA Block C 2017

of Riano
e. Habeas Corpus
f. Disciplinary proceedings against members of
the judiciary and attorneys
g. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls
2. Sec. 3, Rule 56
a. Writ of Amparo
b. Writ of Habeas Data
3. Sec. 2, Rule 56 - All references to the CA shall also be
understood to likewise refer to the SC, except those
dealing strictly with and specifically intended for
appealed cases in the CA
4. Rule 52 governing motions for reconsideration of
judgments and final order of the SC
Appeal to the SC
1. By petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), except in
criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death,
RP, or life imprisonment (Sec. 3, Rule 56)
2. N.B. Questions of law only hence, under Sec. 6, Rule
56, if an appeal under Rule 45 is taken to the SC from
the RTC submitting issues of fact, the appeal may be
referred to the CA
Cases under the Constitution heard en banc
1. Constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law
2. Those required under the rules of court
3. Cases involving the constitutionality, application or
operation of PDs, proclamations, orders, instructions,
ordinances or other regulations
4. Cases heard by a division when the required number
in the division is NOT obtained

Civil Procedure | Atty. Aquino | Based on the book

5. Cases involving a modification or reversal of a
doctrine or principle of law laid down previously by the
SC in a decision rendered en banc or by a division
6. Cases involving discipline of judges of lower courts
7. Contests relations to the election, returns and
qualifications of the President or VP
Procedure when the SC en banc is equally divided
Where the opinion of the SC en banc is equally
divided, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the
case shall again be deliberation on.
If after such deliberation no decision is reached, the
original action commenced in the court shall be
dismissed.
In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed
from shall stand affirmed.
On all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall
be denied.

Z. GARCIA Block C 2017

of Riano
En banc
Unlike the SC which could sit en banc in
order to resolve cases, the CA may sit en
banc ONLY for the purpose of exercising
administrative, ceremonial and other nonadjudicatory functions

Civil Procedure | Atty. Aquino | Based on the book

Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction over the following cases