Motion to quash; interlocutory order

"Parameters of the Court's review of interlocutory orders.

An order denying a Motion to Quash is interlocutory in nature and is not appealable. In general, the same cannot even be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari in view of the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law. "The remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the movant accused to enter a plea, go to trial, and should the decision be adverse, reiterate on appeal from the final judgment and assign as error the denial of the motion to quash."38 However, when special or exceptional reasons obtain, immediate resort to filing of a petition for certiorari may be allowed.39
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the same as an appeal. In an appeal, the appellate court reviews errors of judgment. On the other hand, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not an appeal but a special civil action, where the reviewing court has jurisdiction only over errors of jurisdiction.40
In this regard, it is important to underscore the limitation in the mode of review of interlocutory orders as it dictates the context within which the Court resolves the instant petition for review on certiorari. Rule 45 limits the Court to review questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. Hence, without disregarding the rule that an interlocutory order cannot be the subject of an appeal, the Court examines the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence of or absence of grave abuse of discretion when it issued the interlocutory order.41
In view of the attendant circumstances, particularly the novel aspects of this case, which will be illustrated further on in this decision, it would be more favorable for this Court to entertain this appeal. It also bears to note that this case has been pending for a long time. The subject Orders of the RTC were issued in 2012; the assailed rulings of the CA were promulgated in 2013 and 2014; and the instant petition for review was filed in 2015. Given the considerable lapse of time that this case has been pending, it would serve no useful purpose for the Court to dismiss the instant case on technicality alone. Speedy disposition presents a special and important consideration in this case. "

FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 212738. March 09, 2022 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ATTY. ANNA LIZA R. JUAN­-BARRAMEDA, MISCHAELLA SAVARI, AND MARLON SAVARI, PETITIONERS, VS. RUFINO RAMOY AND DENNIS PADILLA, RESPONDENTS.


https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_212738_2022.html