This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Thus, we find no merit in respondents' contention that petitioner erred in its choice of remedy before this Court. Under Section 1(c) and (f),[30] Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order and an order of execution, respectively. An interlocutory order is one which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.[31] Such is the nature of an order granting or denying an application for preliminary injunction; hence, not appealable.[32] The proper remedy, as petitioner did in this case, is to file a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition under Rule 65. | |||||
|
2007-05-25 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| A final order is one that disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court, while an interlocutory order is one which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.[7] | |||||