Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PAMELA S. SEVILLENO v. PACITA CARILO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 190983 2015-07-29	SURENDRA GOBINDRAM DASWANI v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK BRION, J.
In these lights, Daswani correctly availed of the remedy of Rule 45. When only questions of law remain to be addressed, a direct recourse to the Court under this remedy is the proper mode of appeal.[18]
	GR No. 166923 2014-11-26	PHILIPPINE MIGRANTS RIGHTS WATCH v. OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION PERALTA, J.
Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that the mode of appeal in all cases involving only questions of law shall be by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45.[7]
	GR No. 180651 2014-07-30	NURSERY CARE CORPORATION v. ANTHONY ACEVEDO BERSAMIN, J.
from the RTC to the CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed; and that an appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall be outrightly dismissed.[29]
	GR No. 161771 2012-02-15	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. EDUARDO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear and decide a case.[14] A court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is conferred only by the Constitution or by statute.[15] The nature of an action and the subject matter thereof, as well as which court or agency of the government has jurisdiction over the same, are determined by the material allegations of the complaint in relation to the law involved and the character of the reliefs prayed for, whether or not the complainant/plaintiff is entitled to any or all of such reliefs.[16] And jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court.[17]
	GR No. 151369 2011-03-23	ANITA MONASTERIO-PE AND SPS. ROMULO TAN AND EDITHA PE-TAN v. JOSE JUAN TONG PERALTA, J.
Moreover, the appeal under Rule 45 of the said Rules contemplates that the RTC rendered the judgment, final order or resolution acting in its original jurisdiction.[8] In the present case, the assailed Decision and Order of the RTC were issued in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
	GR No. 175910 2009-07-30	ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA v. FE VDA. DE TE PERALTA, J.
Significantly, the rule on appeals is outlined below, to wit:[28]
	GR No. 166408 2008-10-06	QUEZON CITY v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
In the recent case of Sevilleno v. Carilo,[18] this Court ruled that the dismissal of the appeal of petitioner was valid, considering the issues raised there were pure questions of law, viz.:Petitioners interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals but it was dismissed for being the wrong mode of appeal. The appellate court held that since the issue being raised is whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, which is a question of law, the appeal should have been elevated to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Section 2, Rule 41 of the same Rules which governs appeals from judgments and final orders of the RTC to the Court of Appeals, provides:
	GR No. 131903 2008-06-26	RAGASA v. CA CARPIO, J.
In Sevilleno v. Carilo,[31] citing Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court summarized the rule on appeals:(1) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, appeal may be made to the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal where the appellant raises questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law;