Below is a practical, end-to-end guide to how ordinary appeals are processed in the Court of Appeals (Rule 44) and how appeals by certiorari are elevated to the Supreme Court (Rule 45)—what they cover, when to use each, deadlines, contents of filings, common pitfalls, and strategic tips.

Big picture: where Rules 44 and 45 fit

Rule 41 / 42 / 43 tell you how to get into the Court of Appeals (CA):
- Rule 41: ordinary appeal from the RTC (generally when RTC decided in its original jurisdiction) that goes to the CA on questions of fact and law.
- Rule 42: petition for review from RTC decisions rendered in appellate jurisdiction to the CA.
- Rule 43: petition for review from certain quasi-judicial agencies to the CA.
Rule 44 governs what happens inside the CA after an appeal is already there—briefs, timelines, arguments, and submission.
Rule 45 is a separate mode: appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court (SC) on pure questions of law from judgments of the CA, the Sandiganbayan, the CTA, and—in narrowly defined instances—directly from the RTC.

Think of Rule 44 as the CA playbook for ordinary appealed cases, and Rule 45 as the gateway to the SC when only legal issues remain.

Rule 44 — Procedure in the Court of Appeals (ordinary appealed cases)

Scope

Rule 44 applies after an appeal (typically under Rule 41) is given due course in the CA. It prescribes how the record is transmitted, the sequence and content of briefs, oral arguments (if any), and the submission of the case for decision.

What the CA receives

Original record and transcripts (or certified copies), transmitted by the RTC clerk once the appeal is perfected.
Parties will be notified when the record is complete; that notice starts the briefing clock.

Briefing timetable (core practice)

Appellant’s Brief: Due 45 days from receipt of the notice of completion of the record (or notice that the appeal is ready for briefing).
Appellee’s Brief: Due 45 days from receipt of the appellant’s brief.
Reply Brief (optional): Due 20 days from receipt of the appellee’s brief.
Extensions: Granted for good cause. As a working practice, the first extension is easier to obtain; additional extensions require stronger justification and may be shorter.

Practical effect of late or missing briefs

Failure of appellant to file a brief can be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.

Failure of appellee to file a brief usually does not result in default; the case may be resolved on the appellant’s brief and the record.

Required contents of briefs (checklist you can reuse)

Every brief should be clear, paginated, and record-anchored. Expect the CA to police record citations.

Appellant’s Brief typically includes:

Subject index & table of authorities (with pinpoint pages)
Assignment of errors (each alleged error concisely stated)
Statement of the case (nature, course, disposition below)
Statement of facts (with record citations to transcripts/records)
Issues presented for review (framed as questions)
Argument (structured by assigned errors; cite law, jurisprudence, and the record)
Relief (precise prayer)
Annexes (if needed—e.g., copies of material portions of the record)

Appellee’s Brief mirrors the format and should join issue on each assigned error; it may counter-assign errors (e.g., to uphold on alternative grounds).

Reply Brief is for truly new points raised by the appellee; keep it focused.

Joint or separate briefs

Multiple appellants/appellees may file a joint brief if their positions align, or separate briefs if issues diverge.

Oral argument & memoranda

Oral argument is discretionary. Most CA cases are resolved on the briefs.
The CA may direct the filing of supplemental memoranda on specific points.

Scope of review; unassigned errors

The CA reviews questions of fact and law.
It may consider unassigned errors that:
- Affect jurisdiction,
- Are necessary to resolve the case,
- Are plain errors apparent on the face of the record.

Submission for decision; judgment

After briefing (and any argument/memoranda), the case is submitted for decision.
Motions (e.g., to admit supplemental brief, to cite supervening events) may be granted for compelling reasons but should be sparingly used.

Common Rule 44 pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

Missing record citations → risk of being disregarded; always cite to page/folio of TSN or rollo.
Raising new issues not litigated below → generally not allowed (except jurisdiction/plain error).
Defective assignment of errors → can waive review of those points.
Scattershot argumentation → makes it easier for the CA to affirm.

Rule 45 — Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court

Nature & scope

Discretionary appeal—not a matter of right.
Generally limited to questions of law. The SC is not a trier of facts.
Proper from judgments, final orders, or resolutions of:
- The Court of Appeals,
- The Sandiganbayan,
- The Court of Tax Appeals (usually en banc decisions),
- Directly from the RTC only when the case involves pure questions of law (i.e., skipping the CA is allowed in that narrow scenario).

Not via Rule 45: Decisions of COMELEC and COA are reviewable under different rules (Rule 64 with Rule 65). Decisions of quasi-judicial agencies ordinarily go through Rule 43 to the CA, not Rule 45.

Standard of review

You must show reversible error of law. Typical grounds:
- Misapplication or incorrect interpretation of statutes or jurisprudence,
- Violation of due process of law,
- Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (although that is classically a Rule 65 lens, parties sometimes advance it within Rule 45 arguments when tied to pure questions of law).

When factual issues can still be touched

The SC may review facts only within recognized exceptions, such as when:

The findings of fact are conflicting among the tribunals,
The judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts,
Undisputed or manifest facts were overlooked and would materially alter the result,
Findings are speculative, incredible, or without support in the record,
The CA’s findings contradict the RTC’s on material points,
The case involves purely legal inferences from undisputed facts.

Timelines & extensions

Filing period: 15 days from notice of the judgment/order/resolution or from notice of the denial of a timely motion for reconsideration (MR) or new trial.
Extensions: The SC may grant an additional 30 days (commonly a single extension) for compelling reasons if sought within the original period.

Is an MR in the CA required? Not strictly; Rule 45 does not require filing an MR before appealing. However, a well-grounded MR can sharpen issues and may toll the period (the 15 days then runs from denial of the MR).

What to file: the verified petition for review on certiorari

Core contents (concision and clarity are prized):

Parties and material dates (to show timeliness),
Concise statement of the issues of law,
Arguments showing reversible error,
Specific relief prayed for.

Mandatory attachments & formalities:

Certified true copy of the questioned judgment/order/resolution,
Material portions of the record (clearly labeled) necessary to resolve the issues,
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping signed by an authorized party,
Proof of service on adverse parties and the court/tribunal of origin,
Payment of lawful docket and other fees within the filing period.

Effect of filing; stays

A Rule 45 petition does not automatically stay execution of the lower court/CA judgment.
To prevent execution, seek appropriate provisional relief from the SC (e.g., TRO or preliminary injunction) and show grave and irreparable injury and prima facie merit.

Dispositions by the Supreme Court

Outright denial at the leave stage (e.g., for being late, wrong mode, lack of reversible error, non-compliant petition),
Give due course and require comment (then decide on the merits),
Grant the petition (reverse/modify), deny on the merits, or remand for reception of evidence or further proceedings.

Common Rule 45 pitfalls

Wrong mode (e.g., using Rule 45 when factual re-evaluation is indispensable → should have been Rule 65 or a Rule 43/Rule 41 path first).
Untimely filing or late fees → jurisdictional defect.
Voluminous, unfocused annexes without pinpoint citations → burdens the Court and weakens persuasion.
Arguing facts as if the SC were an RTC → invites summary denial.

Choosing the right path (quick decision guide)

Are you challenging a CA judgment and your issues are purely legal? → Rule 45 to the SC.
Do you need factual review (weighing evidence/testimony)?
- If you’re at the RTC→CA stage: proceed via Rule 41 (then Rule 44 governs inside the CA).
- If already at the CA and need the SC to revisit facts, check the exceptions; otherwise, the SC will decline.
Challenging a quasi-judicial agency’s decision? → Usually Rule 43 to the CA first (then Rule 44 procedures apply within the CA).
From RTC on pure questions of law, straight to SC? → Direct Rule 45 is allowed—but be sure issues are purely legal.

Strategy & best practices

Distill the issues. Fewer, sharper legal questions fare better on Rule 45.
Lock your record citations. In Rule 44 briefing, every factual assertion should have a record page. Unsupported facts are ignored.
Lead with the standard. Explicitly state the governing standard of review and show reversible error; don’t assume the court will reconstruct it.
Preserve issues early. Arguments not raised below are generally waived (save for jurisdiction/plain error).
Use the exceptions judiciously. If you invoke a factual exception at the SC, articulate which exception applies and why.
Mind relief and execution. If judgment is executory, pair your Rule 45 with a TRO/injunction application where warranted.
Compliance is persuasion. Formal defects (missing verification, wrong annexes, late fees) can be fatal. Perfect compliance strengthens credibility.

Frequently asked (and decisive) clarifications

Does filing an MR in the CA stop the Rule 45 clock? Yes—if timely, the 15-day period to file a Rule 45 petition runs from receipt of the denial of the MR.
Can the CA consider issues not in the assignment of errors? Yes, for jurisdictional questions, plain errors, or those necessary to resolve the case.
Can the SC look at facts under Rule 45? Only under narrow, well-recognized exceptions (see list above). Otherwise, no.

Quick templates (structure you can adapt)

Assignment of Errors (Rule 44)

The RTC erred in [state pure legal error].
The RTC gravely erred in [identify factual conclusion] contrary to [record cite].
The RTC decided questions of substance in a manner contrary to law and jurisprudence.

Issues (Rule 45)

Whether the CA committed reversible error of law in holding that [legal proposition].
Whether [statute/contract] was misinterpreted, resulting in a decision contrary to [leading case/statute].

Takeaway

Rule 44 is the procedural engine that drives ordinary appeals inside the CA—master the briefs and their timing.
Rule 45 is a discretionary legal gateway to the SC, reserved for pure questions of law and requiring immaculate form, sharp legal issues, and a clear showing of reversible error.

Use the right mode, hit the deadlines, meet the formal requirements, and tailor your arguments to the correct standard of review—that’s the formula for credible, effective appellate advocacy under Rules 44 and 45.