Lopez v. Dinglasan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from an unlawful detainer action filed in the municipal court of Manila, wherein Lino Gutierrez was the plaintiff and Jesus B. Lopez was the defendant. The parties submitted the case for decision based on a compromise agreement. The municipal court rendered judgment in accordance with this agreement, ordering both parties to adhere to its terms. Subsequently, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the terms of the compromise and sought execution of the judgment, which the municipal court granted. 2. Procedural History: Following the municipal court's grant of execution, the defendant, Jesus B. Lopez, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to prevent the execution of the judgment and requesting a preliminary injunction. The respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance, Rafael Dinglasan, denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. Lopez then filed a notice of appeal from this denial, requesting that the record be forwarded to the Supreme Court. However, the appeal was disallowed by the respondent judge. 3. The Petition: Jesus B. Lopez filed the present petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel Judge Dinglasan to approve his appeal from the order denying the preliminary injunction. The petitioner argued that the order disallowing the appeal was erroneous. The Supreme Court, after oral arguments, noted that the parties had submitted a stipulation to decide the case on the merits as if it were an appeal, but found this stipulation to be out of order as it bypassed essential appellate procedures and sought to have the Supreme Court act as a trial court. The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that the order denying the preliminary injunction was interlocutory and thus not subject to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the order of the respondent Judge Dinglasan denying the motion for a preliminary injunction is appealable. Whether the parties, by stipulation, can confer upon the Supreme Court jurisdiction to decide a case still pending trial in the lower court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The order denying the preliminary injunction is interlocutory and not appealable. The stipulation of parties to have the case decided on the merits by the Supreme Court, as if it were an appeal from the orders of the respondent Judge Dinglasan, was out of order and could not confer appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court for a case still in the process of trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appealability of the order denying the preliminary injunction: The Court held that Judge Dinglasan's refusal to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the execution of the municipal court's judgment was an interlocutory or incidental order. Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that no interlocutory or incidental judgment or order shall stay the progress of an action, nor shall it be the subject of appeal until a final judgment or order is rendered. Interlocutory orders are not appealable because, prior to the final judgment, they are subject to correction or amendment by the court. Therefore, the disallowance of the appeal by Judge Dinglasan was proper. On the effect of the stipulation of parties: The Court found the stipulation submitted by the parties, which sought to have the case decided on the merits by the Supreme Court as if it were an appeal from the orders of Judge Dinglasan, to be out of order and not sanctionable. The stipulation would have the Supreme Court decide a case on appeal without a proper record on appeal and briefs, which are essential for appellate review. More anomalously, there was no final judgment to review. The Court emphasized that parties cannot, by stipulation, confer upon an appellate court jurisdiction to hear and finally decide a case still in the process of trial in the lower court. While the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in extraordinary legal remedies, it can only take cognizance of such actions commenced in lower courts on appeal after all prescribed steps have been complied with.
Main Doctrine
An interlocutory order or judgment is not appealable until a final judgment or order is rendered. Parties cannot, by stipulation, confer upon an appellate court jurisdiction to hear and decide a case still in the process of trial in the lower court.