GR L 13501; (April, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13501; April 28, 1960
JOSE V. VILLASIN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, CEBU BRANCH, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The case originated in the Justice of the Peace Court of Mandawe, Cebu, where plaintiff Jose V. Villasin filed a complaint to recover P1,329.91, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Defendant Seven-Up Bottling Company filed an answer with a counterclaim for P1,273.70, plus P500 as actual damages and another P500 as attorney’s fees. The justice of the peace court rendered a decision on March 16, 1956, finding insufficient evidence for the counterclaim and ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the claimed amount. Defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, where it filed an answer reproducing its counterclaim for P1,283.10, P500 as actual damages, and P500 as attorney’s fees (aggregating P2,283.10). Plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim on March 8, 1957, citing “lack of appellate jurisdiction” because the counterclaim exceeded the original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court, thus placing it beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim by order dated May 2, 1957, relying on cited jurisprudence. Defendant appealed this order.
ISSUE
Whether the order of the Court of First Instance dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim is immediately appealable.
RULING
No. The appeal is dismissed. The order dated May 2, 1957, is interlocutory in nature, as it did not terminate the litigation—something remained to be done on the merits, specifically a hearing and decision on plaintiff’s complaint. Interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which states that no interlocutory or incidental judgment or order shall be the subject of appeal until a final judgment is rendered. The propriety of such an order may only be reviewed after the court has rendered judgment on the merits of the cause of action. The appeal was therefore prematurely taken and should not have been given due course. Costs are assessed against defendant-appellant.