11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [65] are not within this Court's ambit to resolve.[66] Nonetheless, in Medina v. Koike,[67] this Court ruled that while the Petition raised questions of fact, "substantial ends of justice warrant that the case be referred to the [Court of Appeals] for further appropriate proceedings": Considering that the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen and Michiyuki, as well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the matter are essentially factual that calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the RTC, the issue raised in the instant appeal is obviously a question of fact that is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review. .... Nonetheless, despite the procedural restrictions on Rule 45 appeals as above-adverted, the Court may refer the case to the [Court of Appeals] under paragraph 2, Section 6 of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, which provides: SEC. 6. Disposition of improper appeal. — ... 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 decision or appropriate action. The determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be final. This, notwithstanding the express provision under Section 5 (f) thereof that an appeal likewise "may" be dismissed when there is error in the choice or mode of appeal. Since the said Rules denote discretion on the part of the Court to either dismiss the appeal or refer the case to the [Court of Appeals], the question of fact involved in the instant appeal and substantial ends of justice warrant that the case be referred to the [Court of Appeals] for further appropriate proceedings. It bears to stress that procedural rules were intended to ensure proper administration of law and justice. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. A deviation from its rigid enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its prime objective, for after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of the courts. [68] (Citations omitted) WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, the case is hereby REFERRED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action, including the reception of evidence, to DETERMINE and RESOLVE the pertinent factual issues in accordance with this Decision. SO ORDERED. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65383 6/11