Case Digest: GENOVEVA TOMACRUZ-LACTAO, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact ARABELA A. LASAM v. JANNAH ANN ESPEJO

GENOVEVA TOMACRUZ-LACTAO, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact ARABELA A. LASAM v. JANNAH ANN ESPEJO

            Respondent Jannah Ann Espejo (Espejo), along with four others, was tried for estafa before the Regional Trial Court which subsequently acquitted them, but rendered an adverse judgment with respect to the civil aspect of the case on basis of the unaccounted liabilities.

               Espejo complied with the accounting order, but the trial court found the same to be insufficient. Espejo argues that the order is not a decision on civil liability but merely an interlocutory order. Notwithstanding the motion for subpoena duces tecum filed by Espejo to prove her compliance with the order of accounting, which was denied, the trial court proceeded to issue a writ of execution based on the order mentioned.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the decision of the trial court is an interlocutory order

HELD:

As distinguished from a final order which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court, an interlocutory order does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon. The term “final” judgment or order signifies a judgment or an order which disposes of the case as to all the parties, reserving no further questions or directions for future determination. On the other hand, a court order is merely interlocutory in character if it leaves substantial proceedings yet to be had in connection with the controversy. It does not end the task of the court in adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as against each other.