Villasin v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Jose V. Villasin filed a complaint against defendant Seven-Up Bottling Company of the Philippines, Cebu Branch, seeking to recover P1,329.91, plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The defendant filed an answer, admitting some allegations, denying others, and setting up a special defense and a counterclaim for P1,273.70, plus actual damages and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The Justice of the Peace Court of Mandawe, Cebu, rendered a decision finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the counterclaim and ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff P1,329.91, with interest and attorney's fees. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu. In the CFI, the defendant reiterated its counterclaim. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing lack of appellate jurisdiction because the sums claimed aggregated P2,283.10, exceeding the original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court. The CFI granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction. The Petition: The defendant appealed the CFI's order dismissing its counterclaim to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from the order dismissing the counterclaim was prematurely taken. Whether the order dismissing the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction is immediately appealable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The dispositive portion states: "Wherefore, the present appeal is hereby dismissed, with the costs of this instance against defendant-appellant. It is so ordered."
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of premature appeal: The Supreme Court held that the appeal was prematurely taken because the order dismissing the counterclaim was interlocutory in nature. An interlocutory order does not end the litigation and leaves something else to be done on the merits of the case. As such, it is not immediately appealable. The Court cited numerous cases, including Caldera, et al. vs. Balcuelba, et al., to support the principle that interlocutory orders are not subject to appeal until a final judgment is rendered. The order of May 2, 1957, did not terminate the case, as it still required a hearing and decision on the plaintiff's complaint. On the appealability of the order: The Court reiterated the rule that no interlocutory or incidental judgment or order shall stay the progress of an action, nor shall it be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other, as provided in Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The propriety or wisdom of the order dismissing the counterclaim could only be reviewed after the CFI had passed judgment on the merits of the plaintiff's cause of action. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for being premature.
Main Doctrine
An order dismissing a counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction is interlocutory and not immediately appealable until final judgment is rendered on the merits of the main complaint.