This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-06-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners posit that no appeal could be taken from the trial court's decision because it did not completely dispose of all the issues in the case; it failed to settle the issue on damages. Petitioners categorize the decision as a partial summary judgment, which in Guevarra, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.,[28] reiterated in GSIS v. Philippine Village Hotel, Inc.,[29] the Court pronounced as not a final and an appealable judgment, hence, interlocutory and clearly an improper subject of an appeal. Petitioners theorize then that the appeal could not have been perfected and the CA could not have acquired jurisdiction over the case, including the motion for new trial. Accordingly, they conclude that the motion for new trial should have been denied outright for being violative of Section 1,[30] Rule 53 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the motion for new trial may be filed after the appeal has been perfected. Petitioners argue that, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, trial should proceed instead to settle the issue on damages. Petitioners point out that the case cited by the CA in its Decision, Bell Carpets International Trading Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[31] is not applicable to the case because, unlike in the present case, the trial court's ruling completely disposed of all the issues in that case. | |||||