This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have defined an interlocutory order as referring to something between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but it is not the final decision on the whole controversy.[29] It does not terminate or finally dismiss or finally dispose of the case, but leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits.[30] Upon the other hand, a final order is one which leaves to the court nothing more to do to resolve the case.[31] | |||||
|
2003-12-08 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In general, laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which -- by the exercise of due diligence -- could or should have been done earlier.[19] It is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable period, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it.[20] | |||||
|
2002-02-01 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| While the Court upholds the petitioners' contention on the propriety of an answer to a request for admission being filed by counsel, there is no merit in their contention on the late filing of private respondents' omnibus motion. It is indeed a fact that private respondents received a copy of the questioned Order of April 10, 1989 on April 26, 1989 and that they filed the omnibus motion by registered mail only on June 21, 1989 or fifty-six (56) days thereafter. Petitioners contend that the omnibus motion should have been filed within the 15-day reglementary period as required by Section 39 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Suffice it to state that the Order sought to be reconsidered by the lower court did not finally dispose of the merits of the case so that it should be covered by the reglementary period stated in Section 39. That section speaks of "final orders"[13] and not interlocutory ones or those that leave "something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits."[14] By denying the motion to strike out the answers of private respondents to petitioners' request for admission, the lower court did not terminate the proceedings. When it ruled on the omnibus motion which petitioners believe was filed out of time, the lower court simply disposed of a matter that was, in a manner of speaking, getting in the way of the expeditious disposition of the case. Private respondents who should be most interested in the speedy disposition of the case unfortunately and unwittingly caused its delay by a request for admission that only achieved nothing but further delay in the proceedings. | |||||