GR 175551; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175551 ; July 14, 2009
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (represented by MIAA), Petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO G. MENDIOLA, Presiding Judge, RTC-PASAY City, Branch 115; LITTLE VIN-VIN’S FOOD CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
The Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) entered into a Contract of Lease and Concessions with Little Vin-Vin’s Food Corporation (LVV). Disputes arose concerning electrical defects in the leased premises and MIAA’s alleged breaches, including failure to deliver an exclusive area and the erection of barricades. LVV filed a complaint for specific performance and damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued two partial summary judgments: an August 19, 2003 Order directing MIAA to rectify electrical defects and grant LVV a construction extension, and an April 26, 2004 Order finding MIAA in breach and entitling LVV to a rental reduction, with rental payments suspended pending determination of the proportionate reduction.
Subsequently, on July 15, 2004, the RTC issued an Order resolving LVV’s motion and declaring the April 26, 2004 Order as final and executory, stating that all issues had been resolved. MIAA filed a Notice of Appeal on August 6, 2004. The RTC denied the appeal as untimely, ruling that the 15-day appeal period should be counted from the April 26, 2004 Order. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial.
ISSUE
Whether MIAA’s Notice of Appeal was filed on time.
RULING
Yes, the Notice of Appeal was timely filed. The Supreme Court held that the appeal period should be reckoned from the July 15, 2004 Order, not the April 26, 2004 Order. The April 26, 2004 Order was merely interlocutory, not a final judgment. It did not dispose of the case completely, as it left for further determination the specific amount of rental reduction and other residual claims for damages and attorney’s fees. A final judgment or order is one that completely disposes of the case, leaving nothing more for the court to do regarding its merits. In contrast, an interlocutory order does not terminate the proceedings but settles a preliminary or incidental issue.
Since the April 26, 2004 Order was interlocutory, it was not appealable. The period to appeal only commenced when the RTC issued the July 15, 2004 Order, which effectively declared the proceedings terminated and the case submitted for resolution on the merits. MIAA’s filing of the Notice of Appeal on August 6, 2004, was within 15 days from July 15, 2004, and thus timely. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for resolution of MIAA’s appeal.