This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-07-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Go v. Court of Appeals,[27] the Court adverted to the hazards of interlocutory appeals:It is axiomatic that an interlocutory order cannot be challenged by an appeal. Thus, it has been held that "the proper remedy in such cases is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment on the merits, incorporating in said appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in the "sorry spectacle" of a case being subject of a counterproductive ping-pong to and from the appellate court as often as a trial court is perceived to have made an error in any of its interlocutory rulings. x x x. | |||||
|
2005-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is basic that Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governs appeals from judgment or final orders.[10] A final order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.[11] The resolution of the Sandiganbayan sought to be reviewed or set aside is not in any sense judgment or a final order, but an interlocutory order.[12] An order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done on its merits.[13] The order of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to quash filed by petitioners is interlocutory in nature because it leaves something more to be done by the Sandiganbayan, by way of resolving the case on the merits. The denial of petitioners' motion to quash allows the same petitioners to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on their part to present the special defenses they invoked in their motion and if, after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom via appeal by certiorari.[14] | |||||
|
2005-02-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that an order denying a motion to quash on the ground that the allegations in the Informations do not constitute an offense cannot be challenged by an appeal.[10] This Court generally frowns upon this remedial measure as regards interlocutory orders. The evident reason for such rule is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action.[11] To tolerate the practice of allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would not only delay the administration of justice but also would unduly burden the courts.[12] | |||||
|
2002-01-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, considering the prayer of the parties principally we shall look into the substance of the petition, in the higher interest of justice[13] and in view of the public interest involved, inasmuch as what is at stake here is industrial peace in the nation's premier airline and flag carrier, a national concern. | |||||