GR 172829; (July, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172829 ; July 18, 2012
ROSA H. FENEQUITO, CORAZON E. HERNANDEZ, and LAURO H. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, vs. BERNARDO VERGARA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
This case originated from a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents filed by respondent Bernardo Vergara, Jr. against petitioners Rosa H. Fenequito, Corazon E. Hernandez, and Lauro H. Rodriguez. An Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss based on absence of probable cause, which the MeTC granted. Respondent, with the express conformity of the public prosecutor, appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC reversed the MeTC’s dismissal order and directed the trial court to proceed with the case.
Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review. The CA dismissed the petition outright. It ruled that the RTC’s decision was interlocutory, not final, and thus not appealable. The CA also noted petitioners’ failure to comply with procedural requirements under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, specifically their omission to submit copies of relevant pleadings and documents. Their motion for reconsideration did not cure this defect.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review on the grounds that: (1) the RTC Decision was interlocutory and not appealable, and (2) petitioners failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The petition was correctly dismissed on procedural and substantive grounds. First, the right to appeal is statutory, not a natural right, and must be exercised in strict accordance with the law. Petitioners failed to comply with Section 2, Rule 42, which mandates the submission of relevant pleadings and documents. Their failure was a sufficient ground for dismissal under Section 3 of the same Rule. Their obstinate non-compliance, even upon seeking reconsideration, negated their plea for liberal application of the rules.
Second, even assuming procedural lapses were excused, the petition lacked merit. The RTC’s decision reversing the MeTC’s dismissal and ordering trial is interlocutory. It did not terminate the proceedings but directed their continuation. A final order disposes of the subject matter entirely, leaving nothing but execution. An interlocutory order requires further judicial action. Following the precedent in Basa v. People, an appeal under Rule 42 from such an interlocutory RTC order is improper. The proper remedy from an interlocutory order is not an appeal but a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, if there is grave abuse of discretion. No such abuse was alleged or proven here. Therefore, the CA correctly held the appeal to be an improper remedy. The denial of the petition is final.