This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-04-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Here, the resolutions of the COMELEC Division, allowing the registration of the applicant party-list groups and organizations do not partake of a final judgment or order. A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g. an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is right. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned.[169] | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Rule 35 on summary judgments, admits of a situation in which a case is not fully adjudicated on motion,[54] and judgment is not rendered upon all of the reliefs sought. In Philippine Business Bank v. Chua,[55] we had occasion to rule that a careful reading of its Section 4 reveals that a partial summary judgment was never intended to be considered a "final judgment," as it does not "[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for." In this case, there was never any final or complete adjudication of Civil Case No. 0141, as the Sandiganbayan's partial summary judgment in the Swiss Deposits Decision made no mention of the Arelma account. | |||||
|
2011-08-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Philippine Business Bank v. Chua,[20] the Court stated what an interlocutory order is: Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is "interlocutory", e.g., an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules x x x. Unlike a final judgment or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It appears in the records that the Orders in question, or what are alleged to have been exercised with grave abuse of discretion, are interlocutory orders. An interlocutory order is one which "does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court." [20] To be clear, certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate to strike down an interlocutory order only when the following requisites concur: (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and | |||||