Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANDY QUELNAN v. VHF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 159746 2012-07-18	SPS. RAMON MENDIOLA AND ARACELI N. MENDIOLA v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
In Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc.,[28] however, the Court has interpreted the proscription against appealing the order denying a motion for reconsideration to refer only to a motion for reconsideration filed against an interlocutory order, not to a motion for reconsideration filed against a judgment or final order, to wit: [T]his Court finds that the proscription against appealing from an order denying a motion for reconsideration refers to an interlocutory order, and not to a final order or judgment. That that was the intention of the above-quoted rules is gathered from Pagtakhan v. CIR, 39 SCRA 455 (1971), cited in above-quoted portion of the decision in Republic, in which this Court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss an action is interlocutory, hence, not appealable.
	GR No. 185663 2012-06-20	REMEDIOS ANTONINO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY REYES, J.
First, Antonino cannot pursue the annulment of the various issuances of the RTC, primary of which is the Order dated December 8, 2004, in order to avoid the adverse consequences of their becoming final and executory because of her neglect in utilizing the ordinary remedies available. Antonino did not proffer any explanation for her failure to appeal the RTC's Order dated December 8, 2004 and, thereafter, the Order dated January 6, 2005, denying her Motion for Reconsideration dated January 3, 2005. Knowledge of rudimentary remedial rules immediately indicates that an appeal was already available from the Order dated December 8, 2004, as this is a final order as contemplated under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, and there was no legal compulsion for Antonino to move for reconsideration. Nonetheless, since there is no bar for her to file a motion for reconsideration so as to give the RTC opportunity to reverse itself before elevating the matter for the appellate courts' review, appeal is the prescribed remedy from the denial of such motion and not another motion for reconsideration. While Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court includes "an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration" in the enumeration of unappealable matters, this Court clarified in Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc.[26] that such refers to a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order and the denial of a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal is a final order, therefore, appealable. Moreover, a second motion for reconsideration from a final judgment or order is prohibited, hence, can never interrupt the period to perfect an appeal.
	GR No. 158239 2012-01-25	PRISCILLA ALMA JOSE v. RAMON C. JAVELLANA BERSAMIN, J.
reconsideration referred only to a denial of a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order.[24]
	GR No. 175677 2009-07-31	SPS. AZUCENA B. CORPUZ v. CITIBANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Quelnan v. VHF Philippines[32] where the counsel for the therein petitioner failed to calendar a scheduled pre-trial in his diary, the Court held that: The alleged failure of petitioner's counsel to record the scheduled pre-trial in his 1997 diary to justify his absence at the pre-trial cannot amount to excusable negligence. To constitute excusable negligence, the absence must be due to petitioner's counsel's failure to take the proper steps at the proper time, not in consequence of his carelessness, inattention or willful disregard of the process of the court, but in consequence of some unexpected or unavoidable hindrance or accident. (Underscoring in the original)
	GR No. 176141 2008-12-16	GERTRUDES NABUA v. DOUGLAS LU YM REYES, R.T., J.
An appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is effectively an appeal of the order of dismissal itself.[28]
	GR No. 163196 2008-07-04	FIRST MARBELLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION v. AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Only a judgment, final order or resolution rendered by a court in the exercise of its judicial functions relative to an actual controversy is subject to an appeal to this Court by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[21] The January 7, 2004 Order and March 21, 2004 Order assailed herein were issued by the RTC Executive Judge in the exercise of his administrative function to supervise the ministerial duty of the Clerk of Court as Ex-Oficio Sheriff in the conduct of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale; hence, said orders are not appealable under Rule 45. Rather, the correct mode of appeal is by petition for mandamus[22] under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to wit:Sec. 3. Petition for mandamus -- When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. Although under Section 5,[23] Rule 56, an erroneous appeal may be dismissed outright, this Court shall not exercise such option; but instead, shall treat the present petition as a petition for mandamus to obviate further litigation between the parties.[24]
	GR NO. 171532 2007-08-07	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK v. JUDGE REYNALDO ROS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
However, the aggrieved party is not without remedy under the law after his Motion to Dismiss the case was denied by the lower court. As stated above, the aggrieved party may wait for the court a quo to render a judgment or decision and reiterate such interlocutory order as an error of the court on appeal.[29]
	GR NO. 141524 2005-09-14	DOMINGO NEYPES v. DEL MUNDO
In the recent case of Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc.,[13] the trial court declared petitioner Quelnan non-suited and accordingly dismissed his complaint. Upon receipt of the order of dismissal, he filed an omnibus motion to set it aside. When the omnibus motion was filed, 12 days of the 15-day period to appeal the order had lapsed. He later on received another order, this time dismissing his omnibus motion. He then filed his notice of appeal. But this was likewise dismissed for having been filed out of time.
	GR No. 129980 2004-09-20	ALFREDO APUYAN v. EVANGELINE A. HALDEMAN AZCUNA, J.
In the recent case of Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc.,[35] we held, thus: … [T]his Court finds that the proscription against appealing from an order denying a motion for reconsideration refers to an interlocutory order, and not to a final order or judgment. That that was the intention of the above-quoted rules is gathered from Pagtakhan v. CIR, 39 SCRA 455 (1971), cited in above-quoted portion of the decision in Republic, in which this Court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss an action is interlocutory, hence, not appealable.