This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-06-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The contention is untenable. Judge Capulong's order of August 13, 1992 denying respondent's motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order which did not finally dispose of the case.[8] An interlocutory order is always under the control of the court and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment.[9] This prescinds from a court's inherent power to control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice.[10] It is immaterial that the judge who exercises such powers is different from the one who issued the rescinded or amended order since the former is not legally prevented from revoking the interlocutory order of another judge in the very litigation subsequently assigned to him for judicial action.[11] The only limitation is that the judge can not act with grave abuse of discretion, or that no injustice results thereby.[12] | |||||