This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Given the differences between a final judgment and an interlocutory order, the RTC Order dated March 6, 2006 denying respondents' special and affirmative defenses contained in their answer is no doubt interlocutory since it did not finally dispose of the case but will proceed for the reception of the parties' respective evidence to determine the rights and obligations of each other. As such, the RTC Order dated March 6, 2006 may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.[14] | |||||
|
2011-12-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Case law has conveniently demarcated the line between a final judgment or order and an interlocutory one on the basis of the disposition made.[52] A judgment or order is considered final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or terminates a particular stage of the same action; in such case, the remedy available to an aggrieved party is appeal. If the order or resolution, however, merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case, the order is interlocutory[53] and the aggrieved party's remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Jurisprudence pointedly holds that: As distinguished from a final order which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court, an interlocutory order does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon. The term "final" judgment or order signifies a judgment or an order which disposes of the case as to all the parties, reserving no further questions or directions for future determination. | |||||
|
2011-08-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| For a petition for certiorari and prohibition to prosper and be given due course, it must be shown that: (a) the respondent judge or tribunal issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; or (b) the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal cannot afford adequate and expeditious relief.[30] Yet, the allegation that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion will not alone suffice. Equally imperative is that the petition must satisfactorily specify the acts committed or omitted by the tribunal, board or officer that constitute grave abuse of discretion. | |||||