February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 176935-36 : February 03, 2010] ZAMBALES II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NAMELY, JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS VS. CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA), REPRESENTED BY DOMINADOR GALLARDO, ET AL. AND NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), ET AL., RESPONDENTS. :
[G.R. No. 176935-36 : February 03, 2010]
ZAMBALES II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NAMELY, JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS VS. CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA), REPRESENTED BY DOMINADOR GALLARDO, ET AL. AND NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 03 February 2010:
G.R. No. 176935-36 - ZAMBALES II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, namely, Jose S. Dominguez, et al., petitioners -versus- CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA), represented by Dominador Gallardo, et al. and NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), et al., respondents.
The petitioner lodged before this Court a motion to set aside the entry of judgment of the Court's decision[1] dated March 13, 2009 which remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
In its motion, the petitioners, now movants, recall the pronouncement made by the Court in the decision of March 13, 2009, which states in its fallo:
On November 10, 2009, the movants received from this Court a copy of the Entry of Judgment in the above case which states that the decision became final and executory on September 2, 2009.
Hence, ZAMECO, et al, on motion to set aside the entry of judgment, aver that it was error for the Court to have entered the March 13, 2009 decision in the Book of Entries of Judgment, raising the sole issue, thus:
We grant the motion.
The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[3] An interlocutory order or decree is one which does not finally determine a cause of action but only decides some intervening matter pertaining to the cause, and which requires further steps to be taken in order to enable the court to adjudicate the cause on the merits.[4] In this sense, the Court's March 13, 2009 decision which ordered the remand of the case and the records to the Court of Appeals, must be deemed as merely interlocutory in character because it still leaves something to be done by the Court of Appeals, that is, to "determine whether the proceedings outlined in Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, and its Implementing Rules for the conversion of an electric cooperative into a stock cooperative under the Cooperative Development Authority had been complied with." Since the subject decision is interlocutory in nature, it cannot attain a final and executory character.
The above leaves us with no other alternative but to order that the subject decision, which is of interlocutory nature, be expunged from the Court's Book of Entry of Judgment. It is axiomatic that only a final order, decision, or resolution may be subject to entry of judgment.[5]
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the present motion. The Entry of Judgment of the Court's March 13, 2009 decision in G.R. Nos. 176935 and 176936 is hereby RECALLED.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Roberto A. Abad, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 3rd day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 176935-36 - ZAMBALES II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, namely, Jose S. Dominguez, et al., petitioners -versus- CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA), represented by Dominador Gallardo, et al. and NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), et al., respondents.
The petitioner lodged before this Court a motion to set aside the entry of judgment of the Court's decision[1] dated March 13, 2009 which remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
In its motion, the petitioners, now movants, recall the pronouncement made by the Court in the decision of March 13, 2009, which states in its fallo:
WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in order to determine whether the proceedings outlined in Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, and its Implementing Rules for the conversion of an electric cooperative into a stock cooperative under the Cooperative Development Authority had been complied with. The Court of Appeals is directed to raffle this case immediately upon receipt of the Decision and to proceed accordingly with all deliberate dispatch. Thereafter, it is directed to forthwith transmit its findings to this Court for final adjudication. No pronouncement as to costs.[2]
On November 10, 2009, the movants received from this Court a copy of the Entry of Judgment in the above case which states that the decision became final and executory on September 2, 2009.
Hence, ZAMECO, et al, on motion to set aside the entry of judgment, aver that it was error for the Court to have entered the March 13, 2009 decision in the Book of Entries of Judgment, raising the sole issue, thus:
WHETHER THE COURT'S MARCH 13, 2009 DECISION IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER WHICH CANNOT, AS YET, ATTAIN FINALITY AND MUST HENCE BE EXPUNGED FROM THE BOOK OF ENTRIES OF JUDGMENTS.
We grant the motion.
The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[3] An interlocutory order or decree is one which does not finally determine a cause of action but only decides some intervening matter pertaining to the cause, and which requires further steps to be taken in order to enable the court to adjudicate the cause on the merits.[4] In this sense, the Court's March 13, 2009 decision which ordered the remand of the case and the records to the Court of Appeals, must be deemed as merely interlocutory in character because it still leaves something to be done by the Court of Appeals, that is, to "determine whether the proceedings outlined in Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, and its Implementing Rules for the conversion of an electric cooperative into a stock cooperative under the Cooperative Development Authority had been complied with." Since the subject decision is interlocutory in nature, it cannot attain a final and executory character.
The above leaves us with no other alternative but to order that the subject decision, which is of interlocutory nature, be expunged from the Court's Book of Entry of Judgment. It is axiomatic that only a final order, decision, or resolution may be subject to entry of judgment.[5]
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the present motion. The Entry of Judgment of the Court's March 13, 2009 decision in G.R. Nos. 176935 and 176936 is hereby RECALLED.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Roberto A. Abad, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 3rd day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd)MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd)MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 1356-1377.
[2] Id, at 1377.
[3] Sps. Gutierrez v. Sps.Valiente, G.R. No. 166802, July 4, 2008, 557 SCRA 211, 224-225; Pobre v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141805, July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 50, 60; Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140576-99, December 13, 2004, 446 SCRA 166, 177.
[4] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, cited in the Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment.
[5] In the last sentence of Section 2, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, the clerk of the court shall certify that the judgment or final order has become final and executory.