RULE 54 Internal Business SECTION 1. Distribution of Cases Among Divisions.

. All the cases of the Court of Appeals shall be allotted among the different divisions thereof for hearing and decision. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, shall make proper orders or rules to govern the allotment of cases among the different divisions. SECTION 2. Quorum of the Court. A majority of the actual members of the court shall constitute a quorum for its sessions en banc. Three members shall constitute a quorum for the sessions of a division. The affirmative votes of the majority of the members present shall be necessary to pass a resolution of the court en banc. The affirmative votes of three members of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution, which shall be reached in consultation before the writing of the opinion by any member of the division In the case of People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Cirilo, G.R. No. 134245, December 1, 2000, wherein the accused-appellant was found guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, and meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua In Marvin Mercado vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 149375, November 26, 2002, where the accused was convicted for carnapping in accordance with Sec. 14 of RA 6538 or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, the Court ruled that the case is not within their jurisdiction as it is not considered reclusion perpetua. Special laws such as RA 6538, provide their own specific penalties for the offenses they punish, which penalties are not taken from nor refer to those in the Revised Penal Code. SECTION 13. Quorum of the Court. . . . . Where the Court of Appeals finds that the imposable penalty in a criminal case brought to it on appeal is at least reclusion perpetua, death or life imprisonment, then it should impose such penalty, refrain from entering judgment thereon, certify the case and elevate the entire records to this Court for review. This will obviate the unnecessary, pointless and timewasting shuttling of criminal cases between this Court and the Court of Appeals, for by then this Court will acquire jurisdiction over the case from the very inception and can, without bothering the Court of Appeals which has fully completed the exercise of its jurisdiction, do justice in the case.

RULE 55 - Publication of Judgments and Final Resolutions SECTION 1. Publication. The judgments and final resolutions of the court shall be published in the Official Gazette and in the Reports officially authorized by the court in the language in which they have been originally written, together with the syllabi therefor prepared by the reporter in consultation with the writers thereof. SECTION 2. Preparation of Opinions for Publication. The reporter shall prepare and publish with each reported judgment and final resolution a concise synopsis of the facts necessary for a clear understanding of the case, the names of counsel, the material and controverted points involved, the authorities cited therein, and a syllabus which shall be confined to points of law. (Sec. 22a, R.A. No. 296) (n) SECTION 3. General Make-Up of Volumes. The published decisions and final resolutions of the Supreme Court shall be called "Philippine Reports," while those of the Court of Appeals shall be known as the "Court of Appeals Reports." Each volume thereof shall contain a table of the cases reported and the cases cited in the opinions, with a complete alphabetical index of the subject maters of the volume. It shall consist of not less than seven hundred pages printed upon good paper, well bound and numbered consecutively in the order of the volumes published. (Sec. 23a, R.A. No. 296) (n)

RULE 56 - PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT A. Original Cases SECTION 1. - Original Cases Cognizable Only the following cases maybe filed originally with the Supreme Court: 1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibitions, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus 2. Disciplinary proceeding against members of the judiciary and attorneys 3. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls 4. Petitions for writ of amparo and habeas data Raoul B. Del Mar vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 138298, November 29, 2000 SUPREME COURT; MAY TAKE COGNIZANCE OF PETITION IMPROPERLY FILED IF COMPELLING REASONS SO WARRANT; CASE AT BAR. A petition filed for Prohibition under Section 2 of Rule 65 for it seeks to prevent PAGCOR from managing, maintaining and operating jai-alai games. Even assuming, arguendo, that it is an action for injunction, this Court has the discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition at bar if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction. In Tano, et al. vs. Socrates, et al., this Court did not hesitate to treat a petition for certiorari and injunction as a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to resolve an issue of far-reaching impact to our people. This is in consonance with our case law now accorded near religious reverence that rules of procedure are but tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice such that when its rigid application tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, this Court has the duty to suspend their operation. SECTION 2. Rules Applicable. The procedure in original cases for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Constitution, laws, and Rules 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 and this Rule, subject to the following provisions: a) All references in said Rules to the Court of Appeals shall be understood to also apply to the Supreme Court; b) The portions of said Rules dealing strictly with and specifically intended for appealed cases in the Court of Appeals shall not be applicable; and c) Eighteen (18) clearly legible copies of the petition shall be filed, together with proof of service on all adverse parties. The proceedings for disciplinary action against members of the judiciary shall be governed by the laws and Rules prescribed therefor, and those against attorneys by Rule 139-B, as amended. (n)

Republic vs. Carmel Development, Inc., G.R. No. 142572, February 20, 2002 In fine, Rule 46 primarily governs original actions for certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals but Rule 65 generally serves to supplement the same. Rules 46 and 65 co-exist with each other and should be construed so as to give effect to every provision of both rules. Clearly, it was error for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the petition for certiorari filed by the Department of Education on the ground that it was accompanied by mere duplicate originals instead of certified true copies of the assailed orders. Rules which are of primary governance in the Court of Appeals: Rule 46 (Original Actions in the Court of Appeals), Rule 48 (Preliminary Conference), Rule 49 (Hearings on Oral Argument), Rule 51 (Judgment), and Rule 52 (Motion for Reconsideration) have been expressly made applicable to original actions in the Supreme Court save for those portions which deal strictly with and are specifically intended for appealed cases in the Court of Appeals. B. Appealed Cases SECTION 3. Mode of Appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken only by a petition for review on certiorari, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. (n) SECTION 4. Procedure. The appeal shall be governed by and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Constitution, laws, Rules 45, 48, Sections 1, 2, and 5 to 11 of Rule 51, 52 and this Rule. (n) SECTION 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal: 1. Failure to take the appeal within the reglementary period; 2. Lack of merit in the petition; 3. Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other lawful fess or to make a deposit for costs; 4. Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of service and contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition; 5. Failure to comply with any circular, directive or order of the Supreme Court without justifiable cause; 6. Error in the choice of mode of appeal; and 7. The fact that the case is not appealable to the Supreme Court People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Dela Concha, G.R. No. 140205, September 3, 2002 Five Star Marketing Co., Inc. vs. James L. Booc, G.R. No. 143331, October 5, 2007 a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, merits an outright dismissal.

Emelinda V. Abedes vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 174373, October 15, 2007 A petition under Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies. And under Section 5 (f) of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, an error in the choice or mode of appeal, as in this case, merits an outright dismissal. People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 172989, June 19, 2007 At the outset, it must be stated that the petition suffers from a fatal infirmity. Petitioner's remedy from the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals would have been to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within 15 days after notice of denial of its motion for partial reconsideration. This is the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals. However, instead of a petition for review under Rule 45, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals when it substituted the penalty of imprisonment with a fine of P200,000.00 for each case. Purificacion Perez-Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140796, June 30, 2006 Ejectment filed with the DARAB principally on the grounds of non-payment of lease rentals and sub-leasing without the knowledge and consent of the owners of a parcel of agricultural land. Under Rule 65, the petitioners must show that they have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the error that they seek to correct. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy, and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. In this case, an appeal under Rule 45 by way of petition for review on certiorari was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy. The petitioners cannot lodge a special civil action of certiorari to make good the loss of the right of ordinary appeal. In view of this serious procedural error, the instant petition should be dismissed. SECTION 6. Disposition of Improper Appeal. Except as provided in Section 3, Rule 122 regarding appeals in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal taken to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal shall be dismissed. An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court submitting issues of fact may be referred to the Court of Appeals for decisions or appropriate action. The determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be final. (n) Improper Appeal means that the choice or mode of appeal is correct but the appellant raises issues which the court could not resolve. For example, a petition for review on certiorari was taken but factual issues are invoked for resolution. In this case, it may be referred to CA or SC may also dismiss the appeal.

Erroneous Appeal means error in the choice or mode of appeal. For example, where appeal taken to the SC is by notice of appeal instead of a petition for review on certiorari. In this case, the appeal shall be dismissed outright. SECTION 7. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided. Where the court en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on, and if after such deliberation no decision is reached, the original action commenced in the court shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied. (11a) Isagani Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000 If the voting of the Court en banc results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is deemed denied. The Court's prior majority action on the main decision stands affirmed. This clarificatory Resolution applies to all cases heard by the Court en banc, which includes not only cases involving the constitutionality of a law, but also, as expressly stated in Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution, "all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc." League of Cities of the Phil., et al. vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499 and 178056, August 24, 2010 A MOTION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OR RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC OR OF A DIVISION MAY BE GRANTED UPON A VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EN BANC OR OF A DIVISION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WHO ACTUALLY TOOK PART IN THE DELIBERATION OF THE MOTION. IF THE VOTING RESULTS IN A TIE, THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DEEMED DENIED. (Emphasis supplied) The clear and simple language of the clarificatory en banc Resolution requires no further explanation. If the voting of the Court en banc results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is deemed denied. The Court's prior majority action on the main decision stands affirmed. 4 This clarificatory Resolution applies to all cases heard by the Court en banc, which includes not only cases involving the constitutionality of a law, but also, as expressly stated in Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution, "all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc."