This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-11-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| An examination of the records of this case shows that petitioner had already previously filed a motion to dismiss raising basically the same issues and arguments set forth in his Motion to Re-Examine and Reconsider its Previous Orders. Despite the difference in nomenclature, the motion to re-examine also sought the dismissal of the case and partakes of a motion to dismiss. Having been denied by the trial court, petitioner's recourse was to have it reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the petition for certiorari filed before it is not the proper remedy to question its denial, it being merely an interlocutory order, i.e., one that does not terminate nor finally dispose of the case, and leaves something else to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits.[27] In the case of Bangko Silangan Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court reiterated the well-settled rule that:... an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and therefore not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The ordinary procedure to be followed in that event is to file an answer, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment. | |||||