[Final vs interlocutory]

De Leon v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 138884
June 6, 2002

SUMMARY A complaint for collection of sum of money plus interests arising from loan agreement was
filed with the RTC of Bataan by Rodolfo de Leon against spouses Avelino and Estelita Batungbacal.
Based on the answer of Estelita (who obtained the loan) admitting to the existence of loan, a motion for
partial judgment was filed by de Leon which the RTC granted on May 14, 1996. No appeal was taken by
the respondent Spouses. A judgment after trial on merits was issued on June 2, 1997 by the RTC. A copy
was received by the repsondents on June 6. They appealed the decision on June 20. RTC denied the
appeal. The Spouses filed and appeal with the CA. De Leon filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the
orders being appealed are already final and not appealable. CA denied the motion to dismiss and CA took
cognizance of the respondents’ appeal. A petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed by De Leon with
the SC averring that CA erred in taking cognizance of the appeal, the RTC judgments being final and not
appealable and for appeal being filed beyond the reglementary period. SC denied the petition, saying that
the 15-day reglementary period for appeal runs only after the final order was issued by the court and a
copy of the same was received by the parties. Final order ends the litigation, which in this case was the
June 2, 1997 decision received on June 6. The same being appealed on June 20, or 13 days after
receipt, the appeal is filed well-within the reglementary period and CA is well-within its powers and
authority to take cognizance of the same. 

FACTS:
Private respondent Estelita Batungbacal obtained a loan with 5% stipulated interest evidenced by a
promissory note amounting to P500,000.00 from petitioner Rodolfo de Leon; The check she issued to pay
the principal and the remaining interest was dishonored by the bank; Mar. 11, 1996 – Petitioner de Leon
filed with the RTC of Bataan a complaint for a sum of money plus damages with prayer for preliminary
attachment against the private respondents Avelino and Estelita Batungbacal; Estelita admitted to the
loan obligation, but Avelino denied liability on the ground that his wife was not the designated
administrator and therefore had no authority to bind the conjugal partnership and that Estelita contracted
the obligation without his consent; Based on Estelita’s admission, de Leon filed for a motion for partial
judgment; May 14, 1996 - TC granted the motion and no appeal was taken from this order; A motion for
execution was also granted and a writ was issued. The sheriff was able to partially satisfy the judgment
award against the paraphernal property of Estelita and the conjugal properties of the spouses
Batungbacal; June 2, 1997 – after trial of merits, the RTC ordered Avelino to pay the principal and the
interest of the loan and other amounts in accordance with Art 121 of Family Code. The same was
received by the respondents on June 6; June 19 - Avelino filed a notice of appeal; June 25 – a new
counsel, on conformity of Estelita only, appeared in collaboration with the counsel of record for the
respondents, appealing both the May 14, 1996 and June 2, 1997 orders; TC denied the notice of appeal
saying that it was filed beyond the reglementary period; Spouses Batungbacal filed an appeal with the
CA; De Leon filed a Motion to Dismiss averring among others, that May 14, 1996 and June 2, 1997
decisions are final and not appealable, and the appeals were filed beyond the reglementary period; CA
denied the motion to dismiss and took cognizance of the appeal. A subsequent MR was likewise denied;
De Leon filed for petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that CA erred in taking cognizance of the
appeal. He argued that the May 14 decision had become final and executory and in fact partial execution
had been carried out already without objection from the private respondent spouses. As for the June 2,
1997 decision, de Leon argued that the appeal was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the appellate court erred or committed grave abuse of discretion when it
considered the appeal as submitted for decision without petitioner's brief

RULING:

The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in considering the appeal submitted for decision. The
proper remedy in case of denial of the motion to dismiss is to file the appellee's brief and proceed with the
appeal.
A cursory perusal of the motion would readily show that it was a near verbatim repetition of the grounds
stated in the motion to dismiss, hence, the filing of the motion for reconsideration did not suspend the
period for filing the appellee's brief.