This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-12-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| According to the CA, the MTRCB orders denying Chiongs' complaint, while simultaneously withholding the permit to exhibit Butakal, were merely interlocutory because the main case where the subject orders were issued, Administrative Case No. 25-99, was not resolved. Being interlocutory, said orders may not be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari. The CA cited Emergency Loan Pawnshop Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[8] and explained that the remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an answer to the complaint and to interpose as defenses the objections raised in his motion to dismiss, proceed to trial, and in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal. | |||||
|
2004-11-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or as provided for in Section 1, Rule 4,[20] a real action is an action affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. These include partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property. The venue for real actions is the same for regional trial courts and municipal trial courts -- the court which has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property or any part thereof lies.[21] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The Order of the Labor Arbiter denying petitioners' motion to dismiss is interlocutory. It is well-settled that a denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint is an interlocutory order and hence, cannot be appealed, until a final judgment on the merits of the case is rendered.[7] | |||||