Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NOS. 153745-46 2015-10-14	NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
Good reason must consist of superior or exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage that the losing party may suffer, should the appealed judgment be reversed later.[66]
	GR NO. 168088 2007-04-04	SAN FERNANDO RURAL BANK v. PAMPANGA OMNIBUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The CA erred in holding that the Order of the RTC granting the petition for a writ of possession was merely interlocutory. Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters and which do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to question an improvident interlocutory order.[60] On the other hand, a final order is one that disposes of the whole matter or terminates the particular proceedings or action leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. It is one that finally disposes of the pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the lower court.[61] The remedy to question a final order is appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
	GR NO. 143312 2005-08-12	RICARDO S. SILVERIO v. FILIPINO BUSINESS CONSULTANTS CARPIO, J.
First, interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters that do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings.[8] The proper remedy to question an improvident interlocutory order is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not Rule 45.[9] A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper mode of redress to question final judgments.[10]