No vested right in appeal or certiorari

No one has a vested right to file an appeal or a petition for certiorari. These are statutory privileges which may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with by the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.[1] In Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security and General Services, Inc.,[2] the Supreme Court held that:
x x x x

xxx Although technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves, they are necessary, however, for an effective and expeditious administration of justice. It is settled that a party who seeks to avail of certiorari must observe the rules thereon and non-observance of said rules may not be brushed aside as "mere technicality." While litigation is not a game of technicalities, and that the rules of procedure should not be enforced strictly at the cost of substantial justice, still it does not follow that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation, assessment and just resolution of the issues. Procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because they may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for compelling reasons.[3]

In a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, only questions of law may be raised. Questions of fact may not be inquired into. While there are exceptions to this rule, to wit:

(1) the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[4]

[1] Laguna Metts v. Court of Appeals, supra note 14, at 534.

[2] 452 Phil. 621 (2003).

[3] Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security and General Services, Inc., supra, at 631-632.

[4] Arriola v. Filipino Star Ngayon, Inc., G.R. No. 175689, August 13, 2014.