G.R. No. L-12508; November 29, 1960
JOSE L. LAGRIMAS, Provincial Fiscal of Antique, petitioner, vs. HON. ROBERTO ZURBANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Antique, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose L. Lagrimas, the Provincial Fiscal of Antique, was included as a defendant in an amended complaint for damages (CFI Case No. 836) filed by Florentino Importante against the Municipality of Tibiao, its officials, and four private individuals. The amended complaint, signed by Attorneys Buenaventura Tolentino, Esdras F. Tayco, and Calixto O. Zaldivar, alleged that Lagrimas, in his capacity as Provincial Fiscal, had moved for the dismissal of a criminal case (Criminal Case No. 1185) against certain defendants, which, if prosecuted, would have led to the removal of fish corrals and safeguarded Importante’s rights. Lagrimas filed an answer with a counterclaim and subsequently filed a third-party complaint for damages against the aforementioned lawyers, alleging that they knowingly included him in the amended complaint based on bad faith, with the intent to cause him professional and personal humiliation. The respondent judge denied admission of the third-party complaint, ruling that it did not meet the requirements of Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, as the claim for damages was unrelated to the plaintiff’s claim, citing Cayapas vs. Court of First Instance of Albay. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Lagrimas perfected an appeal, but the respondent judge disapproved it, stating the orders were interlocutory and not appealable. A motion for reconsideration of this disapproval was also denied.

ISSUE

Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to approve the appeal from the orders denying admission of the third-party complaint and disapproving the appeal, which hinges on whether said orders are interlocutory or final and appealable.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to approve the appeal, as the petitioner established a clear right to invoke it. The orders in question were not interlocutory but final and appealable. The order denying admission of the third-party complaint finally disposed of the third-party plaintiff’s action within the proceedings of Civil Case No. 836, leaving nothing more to be done in the trial court regarding that complaint. While the main case could continue, the matter between the third-party plaintiff and defendants was terminated. An order is final when it finally disposes of a pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside and annulled the orders disapproving the record on appeal and denying its reconsideration, and directed the respondent court to approve, certify, and elevate the record on appeal to the appropriate appellate court. No costs were awarded.