G.R. No. 185595 ; January 9, 2013
MA. CARMINIA C. CALDERON represented by her Attorney-In-Fact, Marycris V. Baldevia, Petitioner, vs. JOSE ANTONIO F. ROXAS and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Calderon filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to private respondent Jose Antonio F. Roxas on the ground of psychological incapacity. During the pendency of the case, the trial court issued an order for support pendente lite, which was eventually reinstated by the Supreme Court in a prior related case. Subsequently, the trial court granted Roxas’s motion to reduce the monthly child support from P42,292.50 and denied Calderon’s motions for spousal support, increase in child support, and support-in-arrears. The court based its order on changed circumstances, including the eldest child’s earnings, the children’s weekend stays with Roxas, his limited income as a city councilor, and evidence of his compliance with support obligations through other expenses.
The trial court later rendered a final decision declaring the marriage null and void, awarding custody to Calderon, and setting a permanent child support obligation. Calderon appealed the earlier interlocutory orders (dated March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005) reducing support pendente lite and denying her other motions. The Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal, ruling that the orders were interlocutory and not appealable. Calderon elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Calderon’s appeal for being the wrong remedy against the trial court’s interlocutory orders on support pendente lite.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the assailed orders were interlocutory, not final. An interlocutory order does not terminate or finally dispose of a case but leaves something to be done by the court regarding the merits. The orders reducing support pendente lite and denying other incidental motions were issued during the pendency of the main action for nullity. They did not settle the parties’ substantive rights with finality but were merely provisional adjustments based on current circumstances pending the final outcome of the case.
Since the orders were interlocutory, the proper remedy was not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Section 1(c) of Rule 41 explicitly states that an appeal may be taken only from a final order that completely disposes of the case. For interlocutory orders, the aggrieved party may only file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, provided there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. Calderon chose the wrong mode of appeal by filing an ordinary appeal. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed it for being an improper remedy. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision and resolution.