The Difference between ‘Certiorari’ (Rule 65) vs ‘Appeal’ (Rule 45)
| SUBJECT: The Difference between ‘Certiorari’ (Rule 65) vs ‘Appeal’ (Rule 45) |
I. Introduction
This memorandum provides an exhaustive analysis of the distinction between the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 and the ordinary remedy of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. While both are modes of elevating a case for review by a higher court, they are fundamentally different in nature, purpose, scope, and procedure. A clear understanding of these differences is critical, as the erroneous choice of remedy can lead to the dismissal of the action for being the wrong or an improper remedy. This research focuses on their application within the realm of Political Law, though the foundational principles are applicable across legal domains.
II. Nature and Definition
Rule 45 appeal is an ordinary remedy and a matter of statutory right. It is a continuation of the original suit, where a party who is aggrieved by the decision or final order of a lower court seeks a review of the merits of the case by a superior court. The Supreme Court, in Heirs of De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, emphasized that an appeal is part of our judicial hierarchy and a component of due process.
Rule 65 certiorari, in contrast, is an extraordinary remedy. It is not a continuation of the proceedings but an original, independent action. Its purpose is not to review the intrinsic correctness of a judgment but to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. As held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
III. Purpose and Function
The primary purpose of a Rule 45 appeal is to obtain a reversal or modification of a judgment on the merits. The appellate court re-evaluates the evidence, interprets the law, and determines whether the lower court correctly applied substantive and procedural law to the facts of the case. It addresses errors of judgment.
The sole purpose of a Rule 65 certiorari is to keep inferior courts and agencies within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It is a corrective writ designed to annul void proceedings, to restrain an inferior tribunal from continuing to act without authority, and to correct defects in justice resulting from jurisdictional errors. It addresses errors of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
IV. Scope of Review
In a Rule 45 appeal to the Supreme Court, review is generally confined to questions of law. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive, except in specific recognized instances such as when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation or when the inference made is manifestly mistaken.
In a Rule 65 certiorari, the reviewing court does not assess the wisdom or soundness of the decision. The inquiry is limited to whether the respondent tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The court examines the jurisdiction of the lower body and the legality of its proceedings, not the correctness of its evaluation of the evidence.
V. Jurisdiction and Venue
A Rule 45 appeal is filed directly with the Supreme Court from a judgment, final order, or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals. It can also be filed from regional trial courts where only questions of law are raised. The venue is fixed by rule.
A Rule 65 certiorari petition is filed with the Supreme Court only if it relates to an act of a collegiate court (e.g., the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan) or where other modes of appeal are unavailable. Otherwise, it is filed with the Court of Appeals against the Regional Trial Court, or with the Regional Trial Court against an inferior court, quasi-judicial agency, or officer. The choice of court is based on the hierarchy of courts.
VI. Grounds
The grounds for a Rule 45 appeal are errors of law or, in exceptional cases, questions of fact. The appellant argues that the lower court misinterpreted the law, misapplied legal principles, or erred in its procedural rulings that affected the outcome.
The grounds for a Rule 65 certiorari are strictly limited to:
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical 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.
VII. Comparative Table
| Aspect of Comparison | Rule 45 Appeal (Ordinary Remedy) | Rule 65 Certiorari (Extraordinary Remedy) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Ordinary remedy; a matter of right. | Extraordinary remedy; not a matter of right. |
| Purpose | To correct errors of judgment; review the merits. | To correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. |
| Scope of Review | Questions of law; factual findings are generally binding. | Jurisdictional questions only; no review of merits or evidence. |
| When it Lies | From a final judgment, order, or resolution. | From an interlocutory order (if no other remedy) or final order rendered without/with excess of jurisdiction. |
| Effect of Filing | Does not suspend the execution of judgment unless a supersedeas bond is filed. | Does not suspend the proceeding or execution unless a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction is issued. |
| Period to File | 15 days from notice of judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration. | 60 days from notice of judgment, order, or resolution. |
| Subject of Review | Decisions, final orders, or resolutions. | Any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. |
| Substitute for Lost Appeal | Cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. | Allowed only if appeal is no longer available, and not as a substitute for a lost appeal. |
| Hierarchy of Courts | Filed directly with the Supreme Court as prescribed by rule. | Must follow the hierarchy of courts (e.g., RTC to CA to SC), unless exceptions apply. |
VIII. Procedural Nuances and Political Law Context
In Political Law cases, the distinction is paramount. Quo warranto proceedings against public officials, election contests, and cases involving the constitutionality of statutes often involve both remedies. For instance, a decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc is reviewable by the Supreme Court via a Rule 65 certiorari petition, not by appeal. This is explicitly provided under the Constitution and specific statutes, underscoring that the review is jurisdictional in nature.
Furthermore, the principle of hierarchy of courts is more strictly applied in Rule 65 petitions. A direct filing with the Supreme Court may be dismissed for disregarding this doctrine, unless there are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition. In contrast, a Rule 45 appeal from the Court of Appeals proceeds directly to the Supreme Court as a matter of course.
IX. Consequences of Choosing the Wrong Remedy
Selecting certiorari when an appeal is available, or vice versa, is fatal. The Supreme Court consistently dismisses petitions that constitute the wrong remedy. If an appeal was the proper remedy but the period to appeal has lapsed, a party cannot resort to certiorari as a substitute. The doctrine of liberality in the application of procedural rules is rarely applied to cure a basic error in the choice of remedy, as this choice is fundamental to the orderly administration of justice.
X. Conclusion
The remedy of appeal under Rule 45 and the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 serve distinct and non-interchangeable functions within the Philippine legal system. Rule 45 is the vehicle for challenging the legal correctness of a final decision, while Rule 65 is the instrument for assailing the jurisdictional legitimacy of a proceeding or order. In Political Law, where cases often involve the exercise of governmental powers and jurisdiction of specialized agencies, the correct identification of the appropriate remedy—whether to correct an error of law or to curb an excess of jurisdiction—is the critical first step in any appellate strategy. Legal practitioners must meticulously analyze the nature of the error alleged to determine the proper procedural path, as an erroneous choice will almost invariably result in procedural dismissal.