June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 187841 : June 23, 2010] JOSE A.R. BENGZON III V. MA. ROMELA MOSQUEDA-BENGZON. :
[G.R. No. 187841 : June 23, 2010]
JOSE A.R. BENGZON III V. MA. ROMELA MOSQUEDA-BENGZON.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 June 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 187841 - JOSE A.R. BENGZON III v. MA. ROMELA MOSQUEDA-BENGZON. - Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) protects the family and its members, particularly the women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security; hence, orders may be issued specifically to ensure that the protection is ensured. The application for a protection order may be filed either as an independent action or as an incidental relief in any civil or criminal case. The primary purpose of a protection order as an incidental relief is to afford immediate protection to the victims during the pendency of civil or criminal cases. On October 19, 2004, the Court issued A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC to lay down the rules to be followed in proceedings involving violence against women and their children.
Herein, the respondent filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to the petitioner. She applied for a protection order as an incidental relief in accordance with RA No. 9262. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the application and issued a permanent protection order against the petitioner.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal as provided under Section 31, in relation to Section 32, of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, viz:
Not in conformity with the RTC's approval of the record on appeal, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the CA, assailing the RTC's action as grave abuse of discretion.
The CA granted the respondent's petition for certiorari and set aside the assailed orders of the RTC.
Hence, this appeal.
The decisive question is whether the appeal of a permanent protection order issued as an incidental relief in a criminal or civil case is by notice of appeal or record on appeal.
The petition lacks merit.
There is no question that the protection order, albeit permanent, was incidental to a pending civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage, and was an interlocutory one because its issuance did not terminate the pending action. In other words, the RTC still had to deal with the main case, which must be meanwhile tried and resolved. For that reason, the petitioner could not yet appeal the protection order.
The Rules of Court expressly limits appealability or reviewability to a judgment or final order "that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable."[1] This is known as the "final judgment rule" because the rule allows an appeal only after all the issues involved in a particular lawsuit have been finally determined by the trial court.[2]
The test to determine whether an order or judgment is interlocutory or final is this: "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory, if it does not, it is final".[3] The test of finality should be focused on the substance of the decision or order and its legal effects and consequences, not on its form and name.[4]
The importance of determining compliance with the final judgment rule should be highlighted. An appellate court is held to lack jurisdiction over any decision or order failing the test, and the recourse is the dismissal of the appeal. The power to dismiss can be exercised sua sponte by the appellate court where it lacks jurisdiction.[5]
The questioned permanent protection order did not constitute a final order; hence, it was not appealable. Although the, petitioner might argue that the questioned permanent protection order was the "last" word of the RTC on the issue of the respondent's application for protection order, that characterization did not vest the order with any finality within the meaning of the final judgment rule. A final order that is appealable is one that disposes 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; in contrast, an order is merely interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done upon its merits.[6] An interlocutory order is intermediate or rendered in the middle of a cause and does not finally determine or complete the suit but reserves further questions or directions for future determination.[7] The central point to consider is, therefore, the effects of the order on the rights of the parties. Clearly, the questioned permanent protection order did not determine the rights of the parties with any finality. Such determination will happen only when the trial court resolves the merits of the main action.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 187841 - JOSE A.R. BENGZON III v. MA. ROMELA MOSQUEDA-BENGZON. - Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) protects the family and its members, particularly the women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security; hence, orders may be issued specifically to ensure that the protection is ensured. The application for a protection order may be filed either as an independent action or as an incidental relief in any civil or criminal case. The primary purpose of a protection order as an incidental relief is to afford immediate protection to the victims during the pendency of civil or criminal cases. On October 19, 2004, the Court issued A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC to lay down the rules to be followed in proceedings involving violence against women and their children.
Herein, the respondent filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to the petitioner. She applied for a protection order as an incidental relief in accordance with RA No. 9262. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the application and issued a permanent protection order against the petitioner.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal as provided under Section 31, in relation to Section 32, of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, viz:
Section 31. Appeals. - Any aggrieved party may appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the final order or judgment within fifteen days from notice and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. The appeal shall not stay the enforcement of the final order or judgment.Initially, the RTC gave due course to the petitioner's notice of appeal. However, upon motion of the respondent (who pointed out that the original records would be elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) if the appeal was by mere notice of appeal, thereby necessarily suspending and delaying the trial of the main case), the RTC relented, and instead directed the petitioner to file a record on appeal pursuant to the Rules of Court. The RTC approved the petitioner's record on appeal notwithstanding the lapse of the period for him to appeal and despite the defects in form of the record on appeal.
Section 32. Applicability to applications for protection orders filed as incidents in civil or criminal cases. - The foregoing provisions shall also apply to applications for protection orders filed as incidents in criminal and civil actions.
Not in conformity with the RTC's approval of the record on appeal, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the CA, assailing the RTC's action as grave abuse of discretion.
The CA granted the respondent's petition for certiorari and set aside the assailed orders of the RTC.
Hence, this appeal.
The decisive question is whether the appeal of a permanent protection order issued as an incidental relief in a criminal or civil case is by notice of appeal or record on appeal.
The petition lacks merit.
There is no question that the protection order, albeit permanent, was incidental to a pending civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage, and was an interlocutory one because its issuance did not terminate the pending action. In other words, the RTC still had to deal with the main case, which must be meanwhile tried and resolved. For that reason, the petitioner could not yet appeal the protection order.
The Rules of Court expressly limits appealability or reviewability to a judgment or final order "that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable."[1] This is known as the "final judgment rule" because the rule allows an appeal only after all the issues involved in a particular lawsuit have been finally determined by the trial court.[2]
The test to determine whether an order or judgment is interlocutory or final is this: "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory, if it does not, it is final".[3] The test of finality should be focused on the substance of the decision or order and its legal effects and consequences, not on its form and name.[4]
The importance of determining compliance with the final judgment rule should be highlighted. An appellate court is held to lack jurisdiction over any decision or order failing the test, and the recourse is the dismissal of the appeal. The power to dismiss can be exercised sua sponte by the appellate court where it lacks jurisdiction.[5]
The questioned permanent protection order did not constitute a final order; hence, it was not appealable. Although the, petitioner might argue that the questioned permanent protection order was the "last" word of the RTC on the issue of the respondent's application for protection order, that characterization did not vest the order with any finality within the meaning of the final judgment rule. A final order that is appealable is one that disposes 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; in contrast, an order is merely interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done upon its merits.[6] An interlocutory order is intermediate or rendered in the middle of a cause and does not finally determine or complete the suit but reserves further questions or directions for future determination.[7] The central point to consider is, therefore, the effects of the order on the rights of the parties. Clearly, the questioned permanent protection order did not determine the rights of the parties with any finality. Such determination will happen only when the trial court resolves the merits of the main action.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Sec. 1, Rule 41.
[2] Friedenthal, J. H., et al., Civil Procedure, 2nd Edition, 1993, West Group, pp. 582-583.
[3] Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa MRR Co. v. Yard Crew Union, et al., 109 Phil 1150-1151.
[4] 4 Am Jur 2d, � 87.
[5] See, e.g., Sec. 1, i, Rule 50, Rules of Court.
[6] BA Finance Corporation v. CA, et al., G.R. 107345, January 27, 1994, 229 SCRA 566, 573.
[7] Am Jur 2d, � 87.
