Nuance between Rule 45 and Rule 65

29 Jan, 2026

RULE 45 vs RULE 65

Both rules have "certiorari" in their names:

• Rule 65: Special Civil Action for Certiorari
• Rule 45: Petition for Review on Certiorari

BUT THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

Atty. Micah emphasizes this because it's one of the most commonly confused concepts in remedial law and heavily tested in bar exams.

I. THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE

RULE 45: PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

Nature: MODE OF APPEAL

Jurisdiction Invoked: APPELLATE JURISDICTION

What You're Asking: "Did the lower court decide the case correctly?"

Court Exercising: Supreme Court

Standard of Review: Errors of LAW only (questions of law)

From Where:

• Court of Appeals
• Sandiganbayan
• Regional Trial Courts (in limited cases)
• Court of Tax Appeals En Banc

Statutory Basis: Sec. 5(2), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 1, Rule 45

RULE 65: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI

Nature: ORIGINAL ACTION (special civil action)

Jurisdiction Invoked: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

What You're Asking: "Did the lower tribunal act with jurisdiction or commit grave abuse of discretion?"

Court Exercising:

• Regional Trial Court
• Court of Appeals
• Supreme Court (depending on hierarchy)

Standard of Review: Errors of JURISDICTION or grave abuse of discretion

From Where: Any tribunal, board, officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions

Statutory Basis: Sec. 1, Rule 65

II. COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON TABLE

III. WHEN TO USE WHICH: DECISION TREE

SCENARIO: Lower Court Rendered Decision Against You

STEP 1: Was there a FINAL JUDGMENT or FINAL ORDER?

If NO (interlocutory order):

• Generally cannot appeal
• May file Rule 65 if grave abuse of discretion

If YES, proceed to Step 2:

STEP 2: Are you questioning ERRORS OF LAW or ERRORS OF JURISDICTION?

ERRORS OF LAW:

• Court had jurisdiction but decided wrongly
• Misapplied law
• Wrong interpretation of statute
• Wrong appreciation of evidence (sometimes)

→ Use RULE 45 (if from CA/Sandiganbayan/RTC in proper cases) → Use ordinary appeal (if from RTC to CA)

ERRORS OF JURISDICTION:

• Court had NO jurisdiction
• Acted in EXCESS of jurisdiction
• Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction

→ Use RULE 65 (certiorari)

STEP 3: What court rendered the decision?

If COURT OF APPEALS: → Rule 45 to Supreme Court (appellate jurisdiction)

If SANDIGANBAYAN: → Rule 45 to Supreme Court (appellate jurisdiction)

If RTC (in proper cases under Sec. 5[2], Art. VIII, Constitution): → Rule 45 to Supreme Court (appellate jurisdiction)

If RTC (ordinary civil cases): → Ordinary appeal (Rule 41) to Court of Appeals → NOT Rule 45

If FIRST LEVEL COURTS: → Ordinary appeal (Rule 40) to RTC → NOT Rule 45

IV. DETAILED ANALYSIS: RULE 45

A. WHAT IS RULE 45?

Riguera's Framework:

Rule 45 is the mode of appeal to the Supreme Court from:

1. Court of Appeals
2. Sandiganbayan
3. Regional Trial Courts (in cases involving constitutionality, validity of tax, jurisdiction of lower court, pure questions of law)
4. Court of Tax Appeals En Banc

B. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT

Constitutional Basis (Sec. 5[2], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution):

Supreme Court shall have power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question

(b) All cases involving legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto

© All cases in which jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue

(d) All criminal cases in which penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of LAW is involved

C. QUESTIONS OF LAW ONLY (Rule 45)

Critical Limitation:

Rule 45 is generally limited to QUESTIONS OF LAW

What is a Question of Law? (Regalado)

A question of law exists when:

• Doubt or controversy concerns application or interpretation of law
• NOT the truth or falsehood of alleged facts
• Facts are ADMITTED or UNDISPUTED
• Issue is: What is the law on these facts?

Examples:

• Does the contract violate Statute of Frauds?
• Is the accused entitled to bail as matter of right?
• What is the prescriptive period for this action?

What is a Question of Fact?

A question of fact exists when:

• Doubt or controversy concerns truth or falsehood of alleged facts
• Requires examination of probative value of evidence
• Involves credibility of witnesses

Examples:

• Did the defendant sign the contract?
• Was the accused at the scene of the crime?
• What is the actual value of the property?

General Rule in Rule 45:

Findings of fact of Court of Appeals are FINAL and BINDING on Supreme Court and NOT reviewable.

Exceptions (When SC Will Review Facts):

1. Findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures
2. Inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible
3. There is grave abuse of discretion
4. Judgment based on misapprehension of facts
5. Findings of fact are conflicting
6. CA went beyond issues of case; findings contrary to admissions of parties
7. Findings of CA contrary to those of trial court
8. Findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
9. Facts set forth in petition and main/amended complaint are not disputed by respondent
10. Findings of fact premised on supposed absence of evidence contradicted by evidence on record

D. PERIOD TO FILE RULE 45

15 DAYS from:

• Notice of judgment or final order, OR
• Notice of denial of motion for reconsideration

Extension:

May request extension of 30 days only

Total Maximum Period: 45 days

Critical: If you file beyond 15 days without extension, or beyond granted extension, petition is DISMISSED and judgment becomes FINAL

V. DETAILED ANALYSIS: RULE 65 (IN CONTRAST)

A. WHAT IS RULE 65?

Original and independent action challenging acts of tribunal done:

• Without jurisdiction
• In excess of jurisdiction
• With grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

B. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION DEFINED

Regalado/Riguera:

Grave abuse of discretion means:

• Capricious
• Whimsical
• Arbitrary
• Despotic exercise of power

Such grave abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform duty enjoined by law.

Mere errors of judgment are NOT grave abuse of discretion

C. WHEN AVAILABLE

Statutory Requirement (Sec. 1, Rule 65):

Certiorari available only when:

1. There is NO appeal, OR
2. No plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in ordinary course of law

Corollary: If appeal is available, certiorari will NOT lie

Exception: Even if appeal available, certiorari may be filed if appeal would be inadequate to correct jurisdictional error

D. PERIOD TO FILE RULE 65

60 DAYS from:

• Notice of judgment or final order, OR
• Notice of denial of motion for reconsideration

NO EXTENSION - 60 days is jurisdictional

Critical: If filed beyond 60 days, petition is DISMISSED and order becomes FINAL

VI. PRACTICAL EXAMPLES: WHEN TO USE WHICH

Example 1: Error of Law

Scenario:

Court of Appeals decided your case. CA held that your action for collection has prescribed after 5 years. You believe prescriptive period is 10 years under Article 1144, Civil Code.

Issue: Did CA correctly apply the law on prescription?

Nature of Error: Error of LAW (wrong interpretation/application of Civil Code)

Remedy: RULE 45 - Petition for Review on Certiorari to Supreme Court

Why NOT Rule 65: This is error of judgment, not error of jurisdiction. CA had jurisdiction to decide the case; it just decided wrongly.

Example 2: Lack of Jurisdiction

Scenario:

Regional Trial Court took cognizance of collection case for P1,500,000. RTC rendered judgment against you.

Issue: RTC has no jurisdiction (should be MTC - amount below P2,000,000)

Nature of Error: Error of JURISDICTION (court has no jurisdiction at all)

Remedy: RULE 65 - Certiorari to Court of Appeals

Why NOT Rule 45:

1. Rule 45 is only from CA/Sandiganbayan to SC
2. This is jurisdictional error, not mere error of law
3. All proceedings in RTC are void for lack of jurisdiction

Alternative: You could also appeal (Rule 41), then raise lack of jurisdiction as issue on appeal. But certiorari is more direct.

Example 3: Grave Abuse of Discretion

Scenario:

During trial in RTC, you filed motion to present additional witness. Motion is meritorious and would prove your defense. Judge denied motion without reason, saying "I don't want to hear any more witnesses."

Issue: Judge's refusal is arbitrary and capricious

Nature of Error: Grave abuse of discretion (arbitrary, whimsical denial)

Remedy: RULE 65 - Certiorari to Court of Appeals

Why NOT Rule 45:

1. No final judgment yet (interlocutory order)
2. Cannot appeal interlocutory orders
3. This is not error of law but grave abuse of discretion

Example 4: CA Decision - Pure Question of Law

Scenario:

Court of Appeals affirmed RTC decision. You believe CA misinterpreted the Insurance Code. Facts are undisputed; only issue is proper interpretation of law.

Issue: Did CA correctly interpret Insurance Code?

Nature of Error: Error of LAW

Remedy: RULE 45 - Petition for Review on Certiorari to Supreme Court

Why NOT Rule 65: CA had jurisdiction; you're questioning correctness of decision, not jurisdiction or grave abuse. This is proper subject of appeal.

Example 5: The Tricky One - Can You Use BOTH?

Scenario:

RTC rendered decision. You believe:

1. RTC had no jurisdiction (amount below threshold), AND
2. Even if it had jurisdiction, it misapplied the law

Can you file both Rule 41 (appeal) and Rule 65 (certiorari)?

Answer: Generally NO - they are alternative, not cumulative remedies

Proper Course:

• If primarily jurisdictional: File Rule 65 (certiorari)
• If primarily error of law: File ordinary appeal, then raise jurisdiction as issue on appeal

Regalado's Rule: Certiorari is NOT substitute for appeal. Where both are available, use appeal and raise all issues (including jurisdiction) on appeal.

VII. COMMON MISTAKES AND MISCONCEPTIONS

Mistake 1: "I'll File Rule 45 from RTC to SC"

Wrong: Rule 45 is generally NOT available from RTC to SC (except in special cases under Constitution)

Correct: From RTC, file ordinary appeal (Rule 41) to CA first

Exception: Direct appeal to SC via Rule 45 if case involves:

• Constitutionality question
• Validity of tax
• Jurisdiction of lower court
• Pure question of law (in proper cases)

Mistake 2: "Certiorari and Petition for Review on Certiorari are the Same"

Wrong: They are completely different

Rule 65 (Certiorari): Original jurisdiction; jurisdictional errors Rule 45 (Petition for Review): Appellate jurisdiction; errors of law

Mistake 3: "I'll Use Rule 65 Instead of Appeal Because It Has More Time"

Wrong: This violates the rule that certiorari is not substitute for appeal

Correct: If appeal is proper remedy, you MUST use appeal. Cannot use Rule 65 just because you want more time or missed appeal period.

Result if you try: Petition for certiorari will be DISMISSED outright

Mistake 4: "Rule 45 Can Review Facts"

Wrong: Rule 45 is generally limited to questions of law

Correct: Rule 45 reviews errors of law only (with limited exceptions where factual findings are conflicting, baseless, etc.)

Mistake 5: "I Can File Rule 65 Directly in Supreme Court from RTC"

Wrong: This violates hierarchy of courts

Correct: File certiorari in CA first (concurrent original jurisdiction but hierarchy applies)

Exception: Can file directly in SC if transcendental importance or special circumstances

VIII. THE CONFUSING "CERTIORARI" TERMINOLOGY

Why Both Have "Certiorari" in the Name

Historical Background:

The term "certiorari" comes from Latin meaning "to be more fully informed"

Original Meaning:

• Writ issued by superior court to call up records of inferior court
• To examine whether inferior court acted correctly

Modern Philippine Usage:

Rule 65 - "Certiorari" (proper):

• Retained original meaning
• Questions jurisdiction/grave abuse
• Original action

Rule 45 - "Petition for Review on Certiorari":

• Misnomer (doesn't really mean certiorari)
• Actually means "appeal"
• Added "on certiorari" to indicate it goes to SC
• Appellate jurisdiction

Regalado's Note:

Don't be misled by the name. Rule 45 is an APPEAL, not certiorari in the Rule 65 sense. The "on certiorari" part just means it's a petition to the Supreme Court (using term from old practice).

IX. FLOWCHART: WHICH REMEDY TO USE

DECISION RENDERED AGAINST YOU
↓
Is it a FINAL judgment/order?
├─ NO → Generally cannot appeal
│        → Rule 65 IF grave abuse of discretion
│
└─ YES → Proceed below
    ↓
    What court rendered it?
    ├─ COURT OF APPEALS
    │   └─ RULE 45 to Supreme Court (15 days)
    │      Questions of LAW only
    │
    ├─ SANDIGANBAYAN  
    │   └─ RULE 45 to Supreme Court (15 days)
    │      Questions of LAW only
    │
    ├─ REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
    │   ├─ Ordinary civil case
    │   │   └─ RULE 41 (ordinary appeal) to CA (15 days)
    │   │
    │   └─ Special cases (constitutional, tax, jurisdiction, pure law)
    │       └─ RULE 45 to Supreme Court (15 days)
    │
    └─ FIRST LEVEL COURTS
        └─ RULE 40 to RTC (15 days)

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE (if applicable):
Did court act WITHOUT jurisdiction or with 
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION?
└─ YES → RULE 65 (certiorari) to appropriate court
          (60 days, subject to hierarchy)
          ├─ From 1st level → File in RTC
          ├─ From RTC → File in CA  
          └─ From CA → File in SC

X. BAR EXAMINATION PATTERNS

Common Bar Question #1

Question:

"The Court of Appeals rendered a decision adverse to petitioner. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court. Will the petition prosper?"

Wrong Answer: "Yes, because SC has jurisdiction over certiorari"

Correct Answer: "No. The proper remedy from an adverse CA decision is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Rule 65 is available only when there is no appeal or adequate remedy. Here, appeal via Rule 45 is available. Moreover, Rule 65 questions jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, while Rule 45 reviews errors of law."

Common Bar Question #2

Question:

"Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court from the decision of the RTC. Is the remedy correct?"

Tricky Answer Needed:

"Generally NO. From RTC decisions in ordinary civil cases, the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 to the Court of Appeals, not Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.

HOWEVER, EXCEPTIONS EXIST: Rule 45 is proper if the RTC decision involves:

• Constitutionality or validity of treaty, law, ordinance, regulation
• Legality of tax, impost, assessment, toll, or penalty
• Jurisdiction of lower court
• Pure question of law (in proper cases)

Without more facts, the remedy is generally IMPROPER."

Common Bar Question #3

Question:

"Is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 an original action or an appeal?"

Wrong Answer: "Original action, because it says 'certiorari'"

Correct Answer: "It is a MODE OF APPEAL. Despite having 'certiorari' in its name, Rule 45 is appellate in nature. It invokes the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review errors of law committed by the Court of Appeals or other lower courts. It is NOT an original action like the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65."

XI. ORAL RECITATION FORMAT

If Asked: "Distinguish Rule 45 from Rule 65"

Answer:

"Rule 45 is a petition for review on certiorari - a mode of appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, or RTC in proper cases. It invokes the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and reviews errors of law only. The period to file is 15 days, extendible by 30 days.

Rule 65 is a special civil action for certiorari - an original and independent action questioning acts done without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. It invokes original jurisdiction of the RTC, CA, or SC, subject to hierarchy of courts. It is available only when there is no appeal or adequate remedy. The period to file is 60 days, non-extendible.

The key distinction: Rule 45 is an appeal reviewing errors of law. Rule 65 is an original action correcting errors of jurisdiction. Rule 45 cannot be used to review questions of fact. Rule 65 cannot be used as substitute for appeal.

Despite both having 'certiorari' in their names, they invoke different types of jurisdiction - Rule 45 invokes appellate jurisdiction, while Rule 65 invokes original jurisdiction."

Total time: ~60 seconds

XII. SUMMARY: THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION

THE ONE SENTENCE DIFFERENCE

RULE 45: "Did you decide wrongly?" (Appeal - Appellate Jurisdiction)

RULE 65: "Did you have the power to decide at all?" (Original Action - Original Jurisdiction)

THE PRACTICAL TEST

When facing an adverse decision, ask yourself:

Question 1: Is this a final judgment from CA/Sandiganbayan?

• If YES → Rule 45 (unless grave abuse)

Question 2: Did the court/tribunal act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion?

• If YES → Rule 65 (if no adequate remedy)

Question 3: Can I appeal?

• If YES → Use ordinary appeal, NOT Rule 65
• If NO → Consider Rule 65

This distinction between Rule 45 and Rule 65 is FUNDAMENTAL to Philippine remedial law. Atty. Micah emphasizes this because:

1. Bar exam favorite - tested almost every year
2. Practice critical - choosing wrong remedy = lost case
3. Conceptually important - shows you understand jurisdiction types
4. Easy to confuse - similar names, different nature

Remember: Rule 45 = APPEAL (appellate). Rule 65 = ORIGINAL ACTION (original jurisdiction). Don't let the "certiorari" in both names fool you!

This study guide was prepared by Mychal Sajulga.

If it helped you on your studies, you have the option to

or send me Good Karma in the form of

GCash: 09162278309

so that I can buy ADHD meds

Also, I have more study guides available

on different law subjects.

If you know me.

Hit me up for a trade.