The Supreme Court recently approved certain amendments to the Rules of Court.

On 4
December 2007, the SC issued A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, approving the proposed amendments to
Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court. The Resolution took effect on 27 December 2007,
following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. The amendments include:
Rule 41 (Appeal from the Regional Trial Courts)
* Under the former provision, no appeal may be taken from [a]n order denying a motion for
new trial or reconsideration. This was already removed in the amendment. In Neypes vs. Court
of Appeals (G.R. No. 141524, 14 September 2005) the SC noted that to standardize the appeal
periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the
Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of
appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a
new trial or motion for reconsideration. The SC also stated that [h]enceforth, this fresh period
rule shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the
Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the
Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and
Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new rule aims to regiment or
make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for
new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.
Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court)
* Section 1 of Rule 45 was amended to include the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in the list of
courts from which an appeal may be taken directly to the SC. The previous mode of appeal from
a CTA decision is to the Court of Appeals (CA), through Rule 43. This is no longer the case since
the CTA is of the same rank as the CA. Republic Act No. 9282 (2004) provides that the CTA
shall be of the same level as the Court of Appeals.
* Section 1 now provides that the petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary
injunction or other provisional remedies and that [t]he petitioner may seek the same
provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during
its pendency.
Rule 58 (Preliminary Injunction)
* The following provision had been added to Section 5 of Rule 58: The trial court, the Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbyan or the Court of Tax Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary
injunction against a lower court, board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the main
case or petition within six (6) months from the issuance of the writ.
* Before the amendment, the language used with respect to the effectivity for a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) issued by lower courts is 20 days (or 60 days when issued by the CA)
from notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. The amendment uses service,
instead of notice.

Rule 65 (Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus)

* The Rules of Court provides that a petition for certiorari shall be filed in the Supreme Court or
xxx. The amendment removed the SC form the enumeration of courts where the petition may be
filed (Section 4). This amendment, however, does not mean that no petition for certiorari may be
filed with the SC, as the Constitution (Sec. 5, Article VIII) explicitly provides that the SC has
original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus.
* The amendment also removed the provision on extension of time to file the petition. This
provision is no longer existent: No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except
for compelling reasons and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.
* The amendment added this provision in Sec. 4: In election cases involving an act or an
omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the
Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
* The amendment also added this provision in Sec. 7 (Expediting proceedings; injunctive
relief): The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from
the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining
order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to
proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge.
* The old provision in Sec. 8 (Proceedings after comment is filed) provides that the court may
dismiss the petition if it finds the same patently without merit or prosecuted manifestly for delay,
or if the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. The amendment
provides for additional sanctions in case of abuse of the process, thus: In such event, the court
may award in favor of the respondent treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and counsel, in
addition to subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions under Rules 139 and 139-B of the
Rules of Court. This is a clear warning on parties and their counsels.
* Such warning is made even clearer with the addition of this provision, also in Sec. 8: The
Court may impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or
measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari.