Calderon v. Roxas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Calderon and respondent Jose Antonio F. Roxas were married on December 4, 1985, and had four children. Petitioner filed for a declaration of nullity of their marriage on January 16, 1998, citing psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Procedural History: Initially, the trial court granted petitioner's application for support pendente lite on May 19, 1998. This order, and subsequent orders for support, were subject to a previous Supreme Court case (G.R. No. 139337) which reinstated them. Later, on February 11, 2003, respondent filed a motion to reduce support, citing his salary as a city councilor. On March 7, 2005, the trial court granted this motion, reducing the children's support and denying petitioner's motions for spousal support, increased child support, and support-in-arrears. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 4, 2005. The trial court subsequently rendered a Decision on May 16, 2005, declaring the marriage null and void, awarding custody of the children to petitioner, ordering respondent to provide P30,000.00 monthly support, and dissolving the conjugal partnership. Petitioner appealed the March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005 orders to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal on September 9, 2008, holding that the assailed orders were interlocutory and that granting the appeal would disturb the final and executory RTC Decision of May 16, 2005. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Now before the Supreme Court, petitioner seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC Orders of March 7, 2005, and May 4, 2005, were merely interlocutory and in dismissing the appeal outright instead of deciding it on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion and/or reversible error when it ruled that the RTC Orders dated March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005 are merely interlocutory. Whether the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion and/or reversible error when it dismissed outright the appeal from said RTC Orders, when it should have decided the appeal on the merits.
Ruling
The petition for review on certiorari is denied for lack of merit. The Decision dated September 9, 2008, and Resolution dated December 15, 2008, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85384 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the RTC Orders dated March 7, 2005, and May 4, 2005: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC Orders dated March 7, 2005, and May 4, 2005, concerning support pendente lite, are interlocutory. The Court reiterated the distinction between final and interlocutory orders, stating that a final order definitively disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the court to do, while an interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case and leaves matters to be resolved. Orders for support pendente lite are provisional remedies, available during the pendency of the action, and are considered ancillary to the main case, dependent on its outcome. The fact that there were arrearages or that parties filed motions to increase or decrease support underscores their provisional character. Therefore, these orders did not finally adjudicate the merits of the main case for declaration of nullity of marriage, nor did they resolve issues like child custody, spousal support, or conjugal assets definitively. On the propriety of the appeal to the Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court held that the CA correctly dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the interlocutory orders. Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may only be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or a particular matter declared appealable. Interlocutory orders are explicitly listed as non-appealable. The proper remedy against an interlocutory order, if rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Since petitioner availed of the wrong remedy by filing an ordinary appeal, the CA's dismissal of the appeal was justified. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's theory that the orders became final due to arrearages was untenable, as the nature of an order as interlocutory or final is not determined by a party's compliance or non-compliance with its directives.
Main Doctrine
Orders for support pendente lite are interlocutory and cannot be appealed directly; the proper remedy against an interlocutory order rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.