| SUBJECT: The Difference between ‘Certiorari’ (Rule 45) and ‘Appeal’ (Rule 45) |
I. Introduction and Statement of the Issue
This memorandum provides an exhaustive analysis of the distinction between the special civil action of Certiorari under Rule 65 and the mode of Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Despite the shared term “certiorari,” these are fundamentally different legal remedies with distinct procedural natures, grounds, and effects. Confusion often arises because both can be availed of to elevate a case to a higher court. This research aims to delineate their characteristics, applicable doctrines, and proper usage within the Philippine remedial law framework.
II. Nature and Definition
Rule 65 Certiorari: This is an original and special civil action. It is an independent lawsuit filed to assail a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions for acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a continuation of the proceedings in the lower court but a separate proceeding to nullify the assailed act.
Rule 45 Appeal: This is a mode of appeal, specifically an appeal by certiorari* to the Supreme Court. It is a continuation of the original case, elevating the entire controversy for review. It is not an original action but a procedural step within the same case, questioning the judgment, final order, or resolution of a lower court based on errors of law or, in exceptional cases, errors of fact.
III. Purpose and Function
Rule 65 Certiorari: The primary purpose is to keep inferior courts and agencies within the bounds of their jurisdiction and to correct acts tainted by grave abuse of discretion. It is a corrective remedy aimed at the nullification of a specific order, resolution, or proceeding. Its function is jurisdictional and supervisory.
Rule 45 Appeal: The purpose is to obtain a review and reversal or modification of a judgment or final order on the merits. It seeks to correct errors in the application of law or appreciation of facts committed by the lower court. Its function is appellate.
IV. Governing Rules and Jurisdiction
Rule 65 Certiorari: Governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It may be filed with:
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) if directed against an inferior court, board, or officer.
The Court of Appeals (CA) if directed against the RTC or other bodies whose acts are for practical purposes not appealable to the CA.
The Supreme Court (SC) if directed against the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC (in certain instances where no appeal is available), or other tribunals.
Rule 45 Appeal: Governed by Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is filed directly with the Supreme Court to review judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, and the RTC on pure questions of law. Appeals from the RTC on questions of fact or mixed questions go to the CA under Rule 41.
V. Grounds
Rule 65 Certiorari: The sole grounds are lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion* is defined as a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment 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.
Rule 45 Appeal: The grounds are errors of law committed by the lower court. Under exceptional circumstances, such as when the factual findings are contradicted by the evidence or are based on a misapprehension of facts, errors of fact may be reviewed. The doctrine of non-review of factual findings* generally applies, giving high respect to the factual conclusions of lower courts.
VI. When Available and Prerequisites
Rule 65 Certiorari: Available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may apply, requiring the petition to be filed first with the appropriate lower court, unless there are special and important reasons to go directly to the Supreme Court. It must be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.
Rule 45 Appeal: Available as a matter of right from final judgments or orders. It is the ordinary remedy against a final disposition. It must be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. A motion for reconsideration is generally a prerequisite to fix the issues and show that the error is one of law.
VII. Comparison Table
| Aspect | Rule 65 Certiorari | Rule 45 Appeal |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Original, independent special civil action. | Mode of appeal; continuation of the original case. |
| Purpose | To nullify acts for jurisdictional defects or grave abuse of discretion. | To review and reverse/modify judgment on errors of law. |
| Governing Rule | Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. | Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. |
| Usual Forum | RTC, CA, or SC, depending on respondent. | Supreme Court (from CA, etc.). |
| Grounds | Lack/excess of jurisdiction; Grave abuse of discretion. | Errors of law (primarily). |
| When Available | Only when there is no appeal or plain, speedy, adequate remedy. | As a matter of right from a final judgment/order. |
| Period to File | 60 days from notice. | 15 days from notice. |
| Subject of Review | An interlocutory order, final order, or resolution rendered without jurisdiction. | A judgment, final order, or resolution on the merits. |
| Effect of Filing | Does not stay the execution of the assailed act unless a writ of preliminary injunction is issued. | A supersedeas bond may stay execution (in appealed cases from RTC to CA under Rule 41; Rule 45 appeal itself does not automatically stay). |
| Evidence Considered | Generally limited to the record of the proceedings below. | Based on the records elevated from the court below. |
VIII. Key Doctrines and Distinctions
The Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts*: While applicable to both, it is more strictly invoked in Rule 65 petitions to prevent the Supreme Court from being burdened with original actions that should be filed with lower courts.
The Doctrine of Finality of Judgment*: Rule 45 appeals from a final judgment are favored. Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy that cannot be used to subvert this doctrine when an appeal was available but lost.
The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies*: Particularly relevant to Rule 65 against quasi-judicial agencies; failure to exhaust administrative remedies generally bars the petition.
The Distinction on “Adequate Remedy”: An appeal is considered a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Thus, if an appeal is available, Rule 65 certiorari will not prosper. The doctrine that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal* is fundamental.
Nature of Review: In Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews the correctness of the lower court’s decision. In Rule 65, the court examines the jurisdictional legitimacy* of the lower court’s action.
IX. Practical Implications and Strategic Considerations
Choosing the correct remedy is critical. Filing a Rule 65 petition when an appeal under Rule 45 (or Rule 41) is available will result in dismissal for being the wrong remedy. Conversely, attempting to appeal an interlocutory order (which is not appealable) via Rule 45 will fail; the proper remedy may be Rule 65 if the order was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Lawyers must carefully assess: (1) whether the assailed act is interlocutory or final; (2) whether an appeal is available and timely; and (3) whether the alleged error is jurisdictional/discretionary (Rule 65) or an error in the application of law/facts (Rule 45).
X. Conclusion
Rule 65 Certiorari and Rule 45 Appeal are distinct legal pathways. Rule 65 is an extraordinary, independent action attacking jurisdictional flaws in a tribunal’s exercise of power. Rule 45 is an ordinary appeal questioning the legal correctness of a final judgment. The most critical distinction lies in availability: Rule 65 is the remedy only when there is no appeal. Mischaracterization of the remedy can lead to procedural dismissal and the loss of a client’s right to relief. A thorough understanding of their differences, as outlined in this memo, is essential for effective legal practice and advocacy.
