Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Fenequito V Vergara

    Uploaded by

    Leo Angelo Menguito
    On February 11, 2004, Rosa Fenequito and others were charged with falsification of public documents. They filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, which the MeTC granted. However, the RTC set aside the MeTC's order and directed the case to proceed to trial. Fenequito appealed to the CA, which dismissed the appeal, finding that the RTC's decision was interlocutory and not appealable. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, explaining that an interlocutory order does not completely resolve a case and leaves issues still to be determined, which was true of the RTC's decision directing the case to proceed to trial.

    Copyright:

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

    Fenequito V Vergara

    Uploaded by

    Leo Angelo Menguito
    41 views1 page
    On February 11, 2004, Rosa Fenequito and others were charged with falsification of public documents. They filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, which the MeTC granted. However, the RTC set aside the MeTC's order and directed the case to proceed to trial. Fenequito appealed to the CA, which dismissed the appeal, finding that the RTC's decision was interlocutory and not appealable. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, explaining that an interlocutory order does not completely resolve a case and leaves issues still to be determined, which was true of the RTC's decision directing the case to proceed to trial.

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Original Title

    FENEQUITO V VERGARA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    On February 11, 2004, Rosa Fenequito and others were charged with falsification of public documents. They filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, which the MeTC granted. However, the RTC set aside the MeTC's order and directed the case to proceed to trial. Fenequito appealed to the CA, which dismissed the appeal, finding that the RTC's decision was interlocutory and not appealable. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, explaining that an interlocutory order does not completely resolve a case and leaves issues still to be determined, which was true of the RTC's decision directing the case to proceed to trial.

    Copyright:

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

    Fenequito V Vergara

    Uploaded by

    Leo Angelo Menguito
    On February 11, 2004, Rosa Fenequito and others were charged with falsification of public documents. They filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, which the MeTC granted. However, the RTC set aside the MeTC's order and directed the case to proceed to trial. Fenequito appealed to the CA, which dismissed the appeal, finding that the RTC's decision was interlocutory and not appealable. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, explaining that an interlocutory order does not completely resolve a case and leaves issues still to be determined, which was true of the RTC's decision directing the case to proceed to trial.

    Copyright:

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

    FENEQUITO V VERGARA

    FACTS:

    On February 11, 2004, an information for falsification of public documents was filed with the
    Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila by the Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila (representing
    Bernardo Vergara Jr.) against Rosa Fenequito, Corazon E. Hernandez, and Lauro H. Rodriquez. On April
    23, 2004, Fenequito, et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case Based on Absence of Probable Cause. The
    MeTC issued an order granting the said motion. Upon appeal by the public prosecutor, however, the RTC
    set aside the MeTC’s order and directed the latter to trial. Fenequito, et al, filed an appeal before the
    CA, which subsequent ruled that the RTC’s assailed decision was interlocutory in nature and was
    therefore not appealable. Hence, the instant petition for review.

    Issue:

    WON RTC’s decision was interlocutory and can be appealed.

    RULING:

    RTC’s decision was interlocutory in nature.  As such, it cannot be appealed.

    One of the grounds for the CA’s outright dismissal of Fenequito et al.’s petition for review was because
    of the latter’s failure to submit copies of pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent to the petition
    filed, as required under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

    It is settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a
    statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of
    law. An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites
    laid down in the Rules of Court. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the
    Rules are designed to facilities the orderly disposition of appealed cases.

    But even if the Court bends its Rules to allow the present petition, the Court still finds no cogent reason
    to depart from the assailed ruling of the CA. This is because Fenequito et al. erroneously assumed that
    the RTC Decision is final and appealable, when in fact it is interlocutory. An order is interlocutory if it
    does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done upon its merits. In
    contrast, a final order is one that which dispose of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular
    proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been
    determined.

    Granted, the assailed Decision of the RTC set aside the Order of the MeTC and directed the court a quo
    to proceed to trial by allowing the prosecution to present its evidence. Hence, it is clear that the RTC
    Decision is interlocutory as it did not dispose of the case completely, but left something more to be done
    on its merits.

    You might also like