This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-02-11 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The order denying petitioner's motion for issuance of a TRO is an interlocutory order on an incident which does not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings.[11] The remedy against an interlocutory order is not certiorari, but an appeal in case of an unfavorable decision. Only if there are circumstances that clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of an appeal that the remedy of certiorari is allowed,[12] none of which is present in the instant case. | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It must be clarified that the said order is but a resolution on an incidental matter which does not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings.[41] It is an interlocutory order since there leaves something else to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits of the case.[42] As such, it is not subject to a reglementary period. Reglementary period refers to the period set by the rules for appeal or further review of a final judgment or order, i.e., one that ends the litigation in the trial court. | |||||
|
2005-01-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Basic is the doctrine that the denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory, cannot be questioned by certiorari; it cannot be the subject of appeal, until final judgment or order is rendered.[41] The remedy against an interlocutory order is not to resort forthwith to certiorari, but, to continue the case in due course and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law.[42] However, under certain situations, recourse to the special civil action for certiorari or mandamus is considered appropriate:(a) when the trial court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction; | |||||