Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 970 views

    Garrido vs. Tortogo - Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    Lexa Clarke
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's order granting a writ of preliminary injunction was interlocutory and not final. An order is considered interlocutory if it leaves issues still to be resolved in the trial court, and final if it resolves all issues in the case. Here, the order granting the preliminary injunction was not final because it did not fully resolve the case on the merits. The appropriate remedy for an interlocutory order is a special civil action like certiorari, not an appeal, unless the order was issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garrido vs. Tortogo - Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    Lexa Clarke
    970 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's order granting a writ of preliminary injunction was interlocutory and not final. An order is considered interlocutory if it leaves issues still to be resolved in the trial court, and final if it resolves all issues in the case. Here, the order granting the preliminary injunction was not final because it did not fully resolve the case on the merits. The appropriate remedy for an interlocutory order is a special civil action like certiorari, not an appeal, unless the order was issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

    Original Description:

    own digest for civpro

    Original Title

    Garrido vs. Tortogo_Aguilar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's order granting a writ of preliminary injunction was interlocutory and not final. An order is considered interlocutory if it leaves issues still to be resolved in the trial court, and final if it resolves all issues in the case. Here, the order granting the preliminary injunction was not final because it did not fully resolve the case on the merits. The appropriate remedy for an interlocutory order is a special civil action like certiorari, not an appeal, unless the order was issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    970 views1 page

    Garrido vs. Tortogo - Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    Lexa Clarke
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's order granting a writ of preliminary injunction was interlocutory and not final. An order is considered interlocutory if it leaves issues still to be resolved in the trial court, and final if it resolves all issues in the case. Here, the order granting the preliminary injunction was not final because it did not fully resolve the case on the merits. The appropriate remedy for an interlocutory order is a special civil action like certiorari, not an appeal, unless the order was issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Garrido vs.

    Tortogo
    G.R. NoG.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011
    Bersamin
    Topic: Rule 36 – Judgment and Final Order
    Case Doctrine/s:
    The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or
    judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the
    order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.
    Facts:
    Domingo Pahila commenced in the MTCC in Bacolod City an action for ejectment with prayer for preliminary
    and restraining order to evict several defendants, including the respondents herein, from his properties.
    However, he died and was substituted by Angelina Pahila-Garrido, his surviving spouse. The MTCC rendered
    a decision in favor of the petitioner. The respondents herein appealed the dismissal to the Court via a petition
    for certiorari (G.R. No. 143458), but the Court rejected their recourse and issued an entry of judgment on
    October 20, 2000. In the meantime, on 16 February 2000, the MTCC amended its decision to correct
    typographical errors in the description of the properties involved. None of the parties objected to or
    challenged the corrections. On 5 April 2000, the MTCC issued the writ of execution upon the petitioner’s
    motion and was duly served. The respondents filed a motion to quash against the writ of execution and its
    aliases, and a motion to stay the execution of the decision, which were denied on 4 May 2001.

    The story would have ended then but more than a year after the writ of execution was served upon the
    defendants, the respondents, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, (with prayer for the issuance of a
    writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order) in the RTC Negros Occidental, which TRO was granted.
    The petitioner sought a clarificatory order, moving that the TRO be vacated due to its being effective for only
    twenty days and because such effectivity could neither be extended nor be made indefinite. On 12 November
    2002, the RTC issued the assailed writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction. The petitioner then directly came
    to the Court through her so-called "petition for review on certiorari," seeking to annul and set aside the writ of
    preliminary prohibitory injunction issued by the RTC pursuant to its order dated 12 November 2002.
    Issue/s:
    WON the judgment rendered on 12 November 2002 was a final order
    Ruling/s:
    No. The order was only interlocutory.

    The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order
    or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the
    order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final. The order dated 12 November 2002, which granted the
    application for the writ of preliminary injunction, was an interlocutory, not a final, order, and should not be the
    subject of an appeal. The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate
    special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of
    jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

    You might also like