This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants then filed a notice of appeal on January 25, 2001. Thus, the records of Criminal Case No. 99-177383 were forwarded to this Court. Pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo,[6] however, we referred the case to the Court of Appeals,[7] where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01431. | |||||
|
2009-12-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the Court of Appeals that interlocutory orders, because they do not dispose of the case on the merits, are not appealable.[17] Likewise, the extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available to challenge an interlocutory order of the trial court. In such a case, the proper remedy of the aggrieved party is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in the appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order.[18] However, where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court may allow certiorari as a mode of redress.[19] | |||||
|
2006-02-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners next attribute to the trial court grave abuse in not setting aside the December 9, 1999 order to conduct a survey on TCT No. 111366(16930) and in denying the Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer. Before disposing of this contention, it must be stressed that these orders are interlocutory and it has been a well-established principle that interlocutory orders are not appealable until after the rendition of the judgments on the merits. This rule is intended to avoid multiplicity of suits and is embodied in Section 1 of Rule 41.[12] The remedy of a party aggrieved would be a petition for certiorari.[13] But for certiorari to lie it must be convincingly shown that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion, or an act so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or that the trial court exercised its powers in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility.[14] Ordinary error would not be enough. | |||||