This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it bears stressing that the trial court's 15 February 1996 order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute is a final order. It operates as a judgment on the merits.[9] Indeed, this is an express provision in Section 3,[10] Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. The same characterization applies to the 11 April 1996 order denying the motion for reconsideration. It is axiomatic that the remedy against such final order is appeal and not certiorari.[11] | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that an order of dismissal, be it right or wrong, is a final order which is subject to appeal, not the proper subject of certiorari. Where appeal is available as a remedy, certiorari will not lie. In Meneses v. Court of Appeals,[38] the Court reiterated the rule that: It must also be stressed that the trial court's order of 5 June 1992 dismissing the petitioner's complaint was, whether it was right or wrong, a final order because it had put an end to the particular matter resolved, or settled definitely the matter therein disposed of and left nothing more to be done by the trial court except the execution of the order. It is a firmly settled rule that the remedy against such order is the remedy of appeal and not certiorari. That appeal may be solely on questions of law, in which case it may be taken only to this Court; or on questions of fact and law, in which case the appeal should be brought to the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to Murillo v. Consul, the appeal to this Court should be by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. | |||||