RULE 42- Petition for Review from the RTC to the CA

Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the
Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for
review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding
docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional
Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's
motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the
payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs 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 fifteen (15) days. (n)
Section 2. Form and contents. — The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the
original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the
full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as
petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c)
set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of
fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments
relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals
or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of
court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and
other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath that he has not
theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or
proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the
aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom. (n)
Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with
any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the
deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (n)
Section 4. Action on the petition. — The Court of Appeals may require the respondent to file a
comment on the petition, not a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice, or dismiss the
petition if it finds the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the
questions raised therein are too insubstantial to require consideration. (n)
Section 5. Contents of comment. — The comment of the respondent shall be filed in seven (7) legible
copies, accompanied by certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein
together with other supporting papers and shall (a) state whether or not he accepts the statement of
matters involved in the petition; (b) point out such insufficiencies or inaccuracies as he believes exist
in petitioner's statement of matters involved but without repetition; and (c) state the reasons why the
petition should not be given due course. A copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner. (a)
Section 6. Due course. — If upon the filing of the comment or such other pleadings as the court may
allow or require, or after the expiration of the period for the filing thereof without such comment or
pleading having been submitted, the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the appealed decision,
it may accordingly give due course to the petition. (n)
Section 7. Elevation of record. — Whenever the Court of Appeals deems it necessary, it may order
the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court to elevate the original record of the case including the
oral and documentary evidence within fifteen (15) days from notice. (n)
Section 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — (a) Upon the timely filing of a petition for review and
the payment of the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed perfected as to
the petitioner.
The Regional Trial Court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in
due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
However, before the Court of Appeals gives due course to the petition, the Regional Trial Court may
issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any
matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order
execution pending appeal in accordance with section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the
appeal. (9a, R41)
(b) Except in civil cases decided under the Rule on Summary Procedure, the appeal shall stay the
judgment or final order unless the Court of Appeals, the law, or these Rules shall provide otherwise.
(a)
Section 9. Submission for decision. — If the petition is given due course, the Court of Appeals may
set the case for oral argument or require the parties to submit memoranda within a period of fifteen
(15) days from notice. The case shall be deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last
pleading or memorandum required by these Rules or by the court itself. (n)

Banting v. Spouses Manglapuz, G.R. No. 158867, 22 August 2006.

Doctrine: An order of the RTC dismissing an appeal from a decision of the MeTC for failure of
appellant to file a memorandum on appeal is one such final order which is appealable by petition for
review under Rule 42 to the CA.
It is axiomatic that a fatally defective or erroneous appeal or motion will not toll the running of a period
to appeal and that a detour from the proper course of an appeal will not earn for the errant party a
fresh start.
The Court of Appeals has no appellate jurisdiction over the MeTC and it cannot entertain a direct
appeal from said decision.
The appeal was deemed abandoned when petitioners failed to file their memorandum on appeal
despite sufficient time given to them by the court. A memorandum on appeal or an appeal brief is vital
to an appeal for only errors specifically assigned and properly argued in the brief or memorandum will
be considered in the decision on the merits. Hence, the lack of a memorandum on appeal is ground
for the dismissal of an appeal.
Facts: An ejectment complaint was filed with the MeTC by Spouses Manglapuz against Spouses
Reyes which later impleaded Banting. It involved the right to possession of a parcel of land.
Thereafter, the MeTC rendered judgment in favor of Spouses Maglapuz. From the foregoing decision,
the petitioners appealed to the RTC which issued an Order directing the parties to file their respective
memoranda on appeal. However, the petitioners did not file any memorandum. Thus, the RTC
dismissed the appeal. A MR was then filed but the RTC only rebuffed it.
Spouses Reyes and Banting received a copy of this Order on January 20, 2003. On that same day,
they filed with the RTC a Notice of Appeal. On February 4, 2003, however, the RTC issued an Order
declaring that the Notice of Appeal availed of by the defendants is misplaced under the
circumstances. The proper remedy provided for by law is the filing of a Verified Petition for Review
with the Court of Appeals paying at the same time to the said court the corresponding docket fees and
furnishing the court and adverse party with a copy of the Petition.
Through counsel, Spouses Reyes and Banting received a copy of the foregoing Order on February
19, 2003. Straightaway, they filed on February 24, 2003 a Petition for Review with the CA and paid on
the same day the corresponding appellate docket fees. They also served copies of the petition on the
RTC and the adverse parties. The CA however dismissed the petition for the simple reason that it has
no appellate jurisdiction over it.
Hence, the present petition.
Issue: Whether the CA is correct in dismissing the Petition for Review of petitioners?
Ruling: YES. Appeal by petition for review under Rule 42 filed with the CA is the appropriate remedy
from decisions or final orders issued by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction this is
provided for in Section 1 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. It also procived that the petition should be
filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the
denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment.
An order of the RTC dismissing an appeal from a decision of the MeTC for failure of appellant to file a
memorandum on appeal is one such final order. It is appealable by petition for review under Rule 42.
In the instant case, the RTC Orders dismissed petitioners’ Appeal of the MeTC Decision for their
failure to file a memorandum on appeal. These orders were therefore appealable by petition for review
with the CA. The Notice of Appeal petitioners initially filed was clearly erroneous. Petitioners sought to
rectify their error by filing the Petition for Review with the CA on February 24, 2003. The question then
is whether such recourse would prosper.
In Neypes v. Court of Appeals, the Court fixed a uniform period for appeals file at 15 days from notice
of the decision or final order appealed from or, where a motion for new trial or reconsideration is
seasonably filed from the said decision or final order, within a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of
the order denying the motion for new trial or reconsideration.
Applying the foregoing rule to the present case, petitioners should have filed the Petition for Review
on February 5, 2003. To recall, the petitioner’s MR was denied and the notice of said denial was
received by the petitioners on January 20, 2003. Hence, they had a fresh period of 15 days or until
February 5, 2003 to file a petition for review.
As it were, however, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on January 20, 2003. Such mode of appeal
under Section 2 (a) of Rule 41 was faulty. Recourse to it did not toll the running of the period within
which to file a petition for review. It is axiomatic that a fatally defective or erroneous appeal or motion
will not toll the running of a period to appeal. A detour from the proper course of an appeal will not
earn for the errant party a fresh start. Petitioners therefore got entangled in an erroneous mode of
appeal and squandered away the remaining time it had to file a petition for review. The Petition for
Review they filed with the CA on February 24, 2003 was out of time.
All told, the CA did not err in dismissing their Petition for Review for it was not only tardy but also
fatally defective.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC committed an error in dismissing petitioners’ appeal on the ground
that no memorandum on appeal has been filed by them?
Held: YES. The RTC validly dismissed the appeal of petitioners. The appeal was deemed abandoned
when petitioners failed to file their memorandum on appeal despite sufficient time given to them by the
court. A memorandum on appeal or an appeal brief is vital to an appeal for only errors specifically
assigned and properly argued in the brief or memorandum will be considered in the decision on the
merits, except those affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as plain and clerical errors.
Hence, the lack of a memorandum on appeal is ground for the dismissal of an appeal.

Spouses Espejo v. Ito, G.R. No. 176511, 4 August 2009.

Doctrine: A decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), rendered in its appellate jurisdiction, may be
appealed to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
-The Court may relax Section 2, Rule 42 of the ROC if there is substantial compliance on the part of
the appellant to comply with the requirement of attaching relevant or pertinent documents with the
petition such as when the appellant immediately rectify its earlier procedural lapse or in the interest of
justice.
Facts: Petitioners are claiming ownership of the Catmon Property, where an apartment Unit, is being
occupied by respondent. According to petitioners, they came to own the Catmon Property by virtue of
a Donation executed in their favor. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer
against respondent before the MeTC.
After submission by the parties of their Position Papers, the MeTC rendered its Decision in favor of
the petitioners. Thus, the respondent filed an appeal with the RTC which reversed the MeTC
Decision. The RTC declared that no unlawful detainer was committed. Since the jurisdictional
requirement to constitute a valid cause for unlawful detainer was not satisfied, the lower Court was
indeed without jurisdiction to hear and decide this case. Thus, the complaint before the MeTC was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners subsequently filed the appropriate Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals which was
later dismissed outright for failure to attach the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer which they filed before
the MeTC, in violation of Section 2, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The CA said that the petitioners argued that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the
action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint. The petition is, however, not
accompanied by the complaint for unlawful detainer. Accordingly, the CA has no way of determining if
indeed the MeTC had jurisdiction over the complaint.
Thus, the petitioners filed with the CA a MR with Motion to Admit, as part of their Petition, a copy of
the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer which they filed with the MeTC but it was denied by the CA.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the relaxation of the Rules as provided for in
Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure in order to facilitate the attainment of justice?
Held: YES. A decision of the RTC, rendered in its appellate jurisdiction, may be appealed to the Court
of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court. Non-compliance
with the requirements set forth in Section 2, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court shall be a ground
for dismissal of the Petition, pursuant to Section 3 of the same Rule.
Nonetheless, it bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote
justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the rules.
In the case at bar, the petitioners immediately acted to rectify their earlier procedural lapse by
submitting, together with their Motion for Reconsideration, a Motion to Admit a copy of their Complaint
for Unlawful Detainer. Submission of a document together with the motion for reconsideration
constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be
submitted along with the petition, and calls for the relaxation of procedural rules.
Moreover, the Court held in Spouses Lanaria v. Planta that under Section 3(d), Rule 3 of the Revised
Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals is with authority to require the parties to
submit additional documents as may be necessary to promote the interests of substantial justice.
Therefore, the appellate court, instead of dismissing the Petition outright, could just as easily have
required petitioners to submit the necessary document, i.e., a copy of petitioners' Complaint for
Unlawful Detainer filed with the MeTC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is GRANTED.

Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157445, 3 April 2013.

Doctrine: The mere failure to attach copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record
as would support the allegations of the petition for review is not necessarily fatal as to warrant the
outright denial of the appeal when the other attachments of the petition sufficiently substantiate the
allegations.
The Court has laid down three guideposts in determining the necessity of attaching the pleadings and
portions of the records to the petition in Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora:
1. First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition.
Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is
whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition.
2. Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended
if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already
attached to the petition.
 3. Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due
course or reinstated upon showing that petitioner later submitted the documents required, or
that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits.
Facts: The case involves a parcel of land which used to be owned by Spouses Eustacio and
Segundina Galvez. After their marital relationship turned sour, Eustacio and Segundina separated.
Eustacio then sold the property to their daughter Jovita without the knowledge or consent of
Segundina. After the sale, Jovita constituted a mortgage on the property to secure her loan from the
(PNB). Subsequently, Jovita failed to pay her obligation. Hence, PNB had the property extrajudicially
foreclosed. There being no redemption, the property became PNB’s acquired asset. Later, it was
purchased by respondents Spouses Montaño.
Thereafter, the Montaños tried to get the actual possession of the property, but Segundina refused to
vacate. Accordingly, the Montaños sued Segundina for recovery of ownership and possession before
the MTC. Segundina countered that the sale of the property by Eustacio to Jovita was null and void
for having been done without her knowledge and consent among others.
The MTC ruled in favor of the Montaños. Segundina then appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
but the RTC only affirmed the MTC’s decision and subsequently denied its MR. Thereafter,
Segundina appealed to the CA by petition for review but it was dismissed outright on the ground that
no copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations
thereof were attached as annexes in violation of Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules.
Segundina moved for the reconsideration of the resolution, arguing that it was within her judgment as
petitioner to decide what documents, pleadings or portions of the records would support her petition;
that her exercise of judgment was not a technical error that warranted the outright dismissal of her
petition; that the rule requiring all pleadings and material portions of the records to be attached to the
petition was an "absurd requirement"; and that attaching the pleadings and other portions of the
record was not an indispensable requirement the non-compliance with which would cause the denial
of the petition.
The CA however, denied Segundina’s motion for reconsideration
Aggrieved, Segundina has appealed to the Court. Segundina amplifies that she attached to her
petition for review the certified true copies of the MTC decision, the RTC decision and the RTC order;
that her allegations and the references in her petition for review were directed at the MTC and RTC
decisions and order; that the averments contained in the "Statement of Facts" of her petition for
review were themselves culled from the MTC and RTC decisions; that, moreover, the grounds of her
petition for review all concerned errors of law that, unlike questions of facts, could be resolved without
having to examine the evidence of the parties; that the CA was imposing an "absurd requirement" by
ruling that all pleadings and material portions should be attached to the petition for review; that the CA
did not even specify which pleadings or material portions of the records should have been attached to
her petition for review; and that the CA did not also specify the issue that it would be unable to
appreciate and determine because of her supposedly incomplete attachments.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred when it imposed an unreasonable requirement that all pleadings
filed before the lower courts should be attached to the petition despite the attachment of material
portions of the records which would sufficiently support the petition?
Ruling: YES. Considering that Segundina attached the certified true copies of the MTC decision, the
RTC decision and the RTC order, the mandatory nature of the requirement of attaching copies of the
judgments or final orders is not in issue here. What is in issue was her failure to attach "the pleadings
and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition."
In Atillo v. Bombay, the Court had the occasion to rule that although the phrase "of the pleadings and
other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition" contemplated the
exercise of discretion by a petitioner in selecting the documents relevant to the petition for review, it
was still the CA that would determine if the attached supporting documents were sufficient to make
out a prima facie case. The crucial issue to consider therefore is whether or not the documents
accompanying the petition before the CA sufficiently supported the allegations therein.
The Court then said that the mere failure to attach copies of the pleadings and other material portions
of the record as would support the allegations of the petition for review is not necessarily fatal as to
warrant the outright denial of the appeal when the clearly legible duplicates or true copies of the
judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the RTC, and
other attachments of the petition sufficiently substantiate the allegations.
Thus, for the guidance of the CA, the Court has laid down three guideposts in determining the
necessity of attaching the pleadings and portions of the records to the petition.
1. First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition.
Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is
whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition.
2. Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended
if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already
attached to the petition.
3. Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due
course or reinstated upon showing that petitioner later submitted the documents required, or
that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits.
In the case at bar, the Court ruled that the attachments of Segundina’s petition for review such as the
certified true copies of the MTC decision, the RTC decision, and the RTC order is already sufficient to
enable the CA to act upon her assigned errors and to resolve her appeal even without the pleadings
and other portions of the records.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari.

Maravilla v. Rios, G.R. No. 196875, 19 August 2015.

Doctrine: Under Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for review shall be
accompanied by, among others, copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as
would support the allegations of the petition. Section 3 of the same rule states that failure of the
petitioner to comply with any of the requirements regarding the contents of and the documents which
should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
In Galvez v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court (SC) held that there are three (3) guideposts in
determining the necessity of attaching pleadings and portions of the record to petitions under Rules
42 and 65 of the 1997 Rules to wit: First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to
be attached to the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test
of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition,
whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince
the court to give due course to the petition. Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to
the petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in
another document already attached to the petition. Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or
part of the case record may still be given due course or reinstated upon showing that petitioner later
submitted the documents required, or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be
decided on the merits.
-The significant determinant of the sufficiency of the attached documents is whether the
accompanying documents support the allegations of the petition.
Facts: Rios filed a criminal case against Maravilla for reckless imprudence resulting in serious
physical injuries before the MTCC. The MTCC acquitted Maravilla of the said crime for failure to
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt but he was asked to pay for temperate damages. This
award was modified by the RTC which instead imposed actual and compensatory damages.
Aggrieved, Maravilla filed a Petition for Review before the CA but the same was dismissed for failure
to incorporate relevant and pertinent pleadings and documents such as the information filed before
the MTCC, the copy of appellant's brief before the RTC and other pieces of evidence/documents
adduced before the lower court which necessary to support his contention as to why he should not be
made liable for actual and compensatory damages.
Petitioner Maravilla now comes before the Court invoking the liberal application of rules on the ground
that he misunderstood the import of Section 2(d) of Rule 42 to mean that only copies of judgments
and or orders of lower courts need to be appended to the petition while other pleadings or documents
may be submitted later on, as the need arises or as may be necessary. He also contends that he has
submitted in his motion for reconsideration certain portions of record of the case in the court a quo
and that denial of his petition due to technicalities would deprive him of the opportunity to attain just
and proper determination of his case.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition for review due to technicalities? - NO.
Held: Under Section 2, Rule 42, of the Rules of Court, a petition for review shall be accompanied by,
among others, copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the
allegations of the petition. This clearly shows that the petitioner has the discretion to choose what
documents to submit which are relevant to his petition. However, such discretion is not unbridled as it
will be the CA who will determine if such documents are sufficient to make out a prima facie case.
It must be noted that CA may not be expected to rule properly on the petition without said pleadings
and documents, since - unlike in an ordinary appeal - the trial court record is not automatically
elevated to the appellate court in a petition for review.
In line with this, the following are guideposts in determining the necessity to attach pleadings and
potions of record, to wit:
1. Not all pleadings and parts of the case are required to be submitted, only those that are
relevant and pertinent. The test is whether the document would support that material
allegations in the petition to convince the court to give due course to the petition.
2. Even if the document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it may not be appended if it is
show that the contents thereof can be found in another document already attached to the
petition. (i.e. material allegations as summarized in questioned order).
3. A petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due
course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that (1) the petitioner later submitted
the documents required, or (2) that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be
decided on the merits.
In this case, the perusal of the appended documents (the decision of the MTCC, the RTC and the
denial of motion for reconsideration) would not show any support to his claim for the denial of award
of damages. Also, while it is true that submission of the necessary pleadings together with the motion
for reconsideration would constitute substantial compliance with the rules, the same was not
applicable in this case since he still left out important parts of the record - excerpts of the transcript of
stenographic notes, the respondent's formal offer of evidence, and the trial court's Order admitting
said formal offer of evidence - that would support his claim that the trial court erred in awarding
damages to the respondent.
Lastly, as to the argument that based on the evidence on record, petitioner's case is meritorious, it
must be said that this Court may not consider such claim. In the absence of recognized exceptional
circumstances', the Court will not analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being
limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed below.