This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-01-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[18] An interlocutory order merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case. In contrast, 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.[19] Clearly, whether an order or resolution is final or interlocutory is not dependent on compliance or non- compliance by a party to its directive, as what petitioner suggests. It is also important to emphasize the temporary or provisional nature of the assailed orders. | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable.[12] An order denying a motion to dismiss does not finally dispose of the case, and in effect, allows the case to proceed until the final adjudication thereof by the court. As such, it is merely interlocutory in nature and thus, not appealable.[13] Section 1(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides: SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. | |||||
|
2011-07-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory.[8] In Manchester v. Court of Appeals, [9] it was held that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. The strict application of this rule was, however, relaxed two (2) years after in the case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,[10] wherein the Court decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. This ruling was made on the premise that the plaintiff had demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees required.[11] Thus, in the more recent case of United Overseas Bank v. Ros,[12] the Court explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court, the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., and not the strict regulations set in Manchester, will apply. It has been on record that the Court, in several instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. In the case of La Salette College v. Pilotin,[13] the Court stated: | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In United Overseas Bank (formerly Westmont Bank) v. Ros,[17] we discussed how Manchester was not applicable to said case in view of the lack of deliberate intent to defraud manifested in the latter:This Court wonders how the petitioner could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the private respondent was moved by fraudulent intent in omitting the amount of damages claimed in its Second Amended Complaint, thus placing itself on the same footing as the complainant in Manchester, when it is clear that the factual milieu of the instant case is far from that of Manchester. | |||||