Ma. Corazon M. Ola Vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 195547. December 2, 2015

On May 28, 2010, petitioner filed a Manifestation with Leave of Court praying that she be granted a period of twenty (20) days within which to file an appropriate pleading.

On June 29, 2010, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Appellant's Brief.

In its first assailed Resolution promulgated on September 9, 2010, the CA denied petitioner's motion for having been filed out of time.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its second assailed Resolution dated December 14,.2010.

Undeterred, petitioner, on January 4, 2011, filed a Very Urgent ExParte Motion for [Extension of Time] to File for Vacation of Resolution or Appropriate Pleading

On February i4, 2011, the CA issued its third assailed Resolution denying petitioner's motion, treating the same as a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading.

Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari.

Will the action prosper?


No.

It is settled that the remedy of a party against an adverse disposition of the CA would depend on whether the same is a final order or merely an interlocutory order. If the Order or Resolution issued by the CA is in the nature of a final order, the remedy of the aggrieved party would be to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Otherwise, the appropriate remedy would be to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

A judgment or order is considered final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or terminates a particular stage of the same action; in such case, the remedy available to an aggrieved party is appeal. If the order or resolution, however, merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case, the order is interlocutory and the aggrieved party's remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

In the present case, the assailed Resolutions of the CA are interlocutory orders, as they do not dispose of the case completely but leave something to be decided upon. As such, petitioner's resort to the present petition for review on certiorari is erroneous.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018