what is the function of court of appeals in the philippines
Court of Appeals of the Philippines The Court of Appeals of the Philippines (Filipino: Hukuman ng Apelasyon ng Pilipinas) is the Philippines' second-highest judicial court, just after the Supreme Court. The court consists of 69 Associate Justices and 1 Presiding Justice. Under the Constitution, the Court of Appeals (CA) "reviews not only the decisions and orders of the Regional Trial Courts nationwide but also those of the Court of Tax Appeals, as well as the awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of, or authorized by 21 Quasi-Judicial Agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions mentioned in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, plus the National Amnesty Commission (Pres. Proclamation No. 347 of 1994) and Office of the Ombudsman (Fabian v. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470). Under RA 9282, which elevated the CTA to the same level of the CA, CTA en banc decisions are now subject to review by the Supreme Court instead of the CA (as opposed to what is currently provided in Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court). Added to the formidable list are the decisions and resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which are now initially reviewable by this court, instead of a direct recourse to the Supreme Court, via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 414)".
Judiciary of Australia Decisions of the High Court are binding on the Federal Court. There is an appeal level of the Federal Court (the "Full Court" of the Federal Court), which consists of several judges, usually three but occasionally five in very significant cases.[20]
Supreme Court of India The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal under the Constitution of India, the highest constitutional court, with the power of constitutional review. Consisting of the Chief Justice of India and 25 sanctioned other judges, it has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.
Supreme Court of India Judges used to be appointed by the president on the advice of the union cabinet. After 1993 (the Second Judges' Case), no minister, or even the executive collectively, can suggest any names to the president,[27][28] who ultimately decides on appointing them from a list of names recommended only by the collegium of the judiciary. Simultaneously, as held in that judgment, the executive was given the power to reject a recommended name. However, according to some,[who?] the executive has not been diligent in using this power to reject the names of bad candidates recommended by the judiciary.[29][30][31]