Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rule 43
Rule 43
Let us now go to Rule 43 which governs Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial
Agencies to the Court of Appeals. Take note that under Section 9 of BP 129, the CA has the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to review decisions of all RTC and Quasi-Judicial Bodies, and Rule 43 is the governing rule on
appeals from quasi-judicial bodies.
So, before this, appeal to the CA of Tax cases is supposed to be to the SC. Now it is reverted to the CA, and
also quasi-judicial agencies. What was the prior law? It is Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, which was
promulgated on January 1, 1995. Now it is Rule 43 – the circular was actually quoted here verbatim. So, you can
no longer go to the SC, even on pure questions of law, ha! Decisions of quasi-judicial agencies must pass first to
the CA even on pure questions of law.
Now what are these quasi-judicial bodies? They are enumerated in Section 1:
So, very specific! The latest addition there are decisions of voluntary arbitrators. Prior to that, it can be
brought by certiorari to the SC, but because of a decided case it is now be brought to the CA.
One case under Rule 43 which I want to discuss with you is the case of
FACTS: This involves appeals from the Board of Investments (BOI). Now, as provided in the
original Omnibus Investment Code of 1981 during the Marcos era, decisions of the BOI are
appealable directly to the SC. But years later it was nullified by the Judiciary Law because all
decisions of all quasi-judicial bodies are appealed to the CA.
Four years later the Constitution took effect. In July 1987 during the term of Cory Aquino, she
promulgated E.O. No. 226, the so-called Omnibus Investment Code of 1987 where provisions from
the old code were merely lifted. And among those included is the provision on appeals from the BOI
where you go directly to the SC.
The position of Lepanto is, the new law (E.O. No. 226) has modified BP 129 because the old law
was modified by BP 129. And since this is a new law, binalik na naman ang appeal sa SC. So na
modify ang BP 129.
HELD: NO. Lepanto is wrong because when Cory Aquino issued E.O. No. 226, the New
Constitution has taken effect. And under the 1987 Constitution, you cannot increase the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC without its consent and concurrence. In effect, the new law (E.O. No. 226)
increased the work of the SC without its knowledge and consent therefore the SC did not agree. The
SC rejected the provision that decisions of the BOI are appealable directly to the SC.
In the case of FABIAN vs. DESIERTO [December 16, 1998], a provision under RA 6670, which provides
that decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, was declared unconstitutional
because the appellate jurisdiction of the SC was increased without its advice and consent.
Another case is MATEO vs. CA (247 SCRA 284 [1995]). This is before Revised Administrative Code No.
1-95. As I have told you before, rulings of different constitutional commissions, CSC, COA, COMELEC should
be direct to the SC. That is why the case of MANCITA vs. BARCINAS (216 SCRA 772) is deemed abandoned
because the new procedure is that decisions of the CSC are now appealable to the CA.
Section 2 refers to decisions of NLRC and the Secretary of Labor. Their decisions can be brought directly to
the SC by way of petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, not by appeal (Rule 43).
Sec. 10. Due course. If upon the filing of the comment or such
other pleadings or documents as may be required or allowed by the
Court of Appeals or upon the expiration of the period for the
filing thereof, and on the basis of the petition or the records
the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the court or agency
concerned has committed errors of fact or law that would warrant
reversal or modification of the award, judgment, final order or
resolution 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.
(n)
Sec. 12. Effect of appeal. The appeal shall not stay the award,
judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless
the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it
may deem just. (10a)
-oOo-
PAGE
PAGE 93
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law