Short answer. Under Rule 46, Section 1, in cases originally filed in the Court of Appeals — as opposed to appealed cases — the party who institutes the action is called the petitioner, and the opposing party is called the respondent, unlike Rule 44's appellant and appellee for cases carried up from a trial court.

What the law says

In all cases originally filed in the Court of Appeals, the party instituting the action shall be called the petitioner and the opposing party the respondent.

Rule 46, Section 1 — Title of cases. Read the full provision →

Petitioner and respondent, not appellant and appellee

Rule 44 uses appellant and appellee for cases carried up from a trial court, but Rule 46 governs a different situation: actions started directly in the Court of Appeals. Section 1 provides that in all cases originally filed in the Court of Appeals, the party instituting the action shall be called the petitioner and the opposing party the respondent, regardless of who ultimately prevails.

Why the labeling tracks how the case began

The choice of terminology is not arbitrary — it signals the case's procedural origin. A petitioner in an original action, such as certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or quo warranto brought straight to the Court of Appeals, is starting a fresh proceeding, unlike an appellant who is continuing a case that began in a lower court and is simply carrying it up for review.

Practical relevance when drafting pleadings

Getting this labeling right matters for correctly captioning pleadings and understanding which set of Rules govern — Rule 44's appeal mechanics do not apply to an original Rule 46 action, and using the wrong terminology can signal, at minimum, a lack of familiarity with which track the case is actually on, which matters when the two tracks carry very different deadlines and content requirements from the start.

Why the distinction is more than cosmetic

Because Rule 46 actions are original proceedings rather than continuations of a trial court case, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the grounds for the extraordinary remedy sought from the outset, rather than simply pointing to errors already made in a lower court's judgment. Calling the party a petitioner rather than an appellant is a reminder that the case is being built from scratch before the Court of Appeals, not reviewed on an existing trial record already assembled below.

Who this labeling binds and what it does not decide

Section 1 binds the clerk of court and every party filing in the case to a consistent caption, since the petitioner-respondent labeling is what the Court of Appeals and its docket expect throughout an original action's life, from the initial petition through any subsequent motions. It does not, by itself, determine what remedy is available or whether the action is properly brought — that turns on the substantive grounds for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or quo warranto found elsewhere in the Rules, not on Section 1's naming convention. A petitioner who mislabels the parties as appellant and appellee does not lose the case on that basis alone, but the mismatch invites confusion about which procedural track — and which set of deadlines and content requirements — actually governs the filing, since Rule 44 and Rule 46 diverge sharply once a case is past the caption stage.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.