All There Is to Know About: “Denial of Demurrer Not Subject to Appeal or Petition for Certiorari” under Rule 33 of the Philippine Rules of Court

1. Overview of Demurrer to Evidence

A demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 of the Rules of Court is a procedural device available to the defendant (or the accused in criminal cases, with an analogous concept under Rule 119 for criminal procedure) that effectively challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s (or prosecution’s) evidence after the plaintiff has rested its case. By filing a demurrer, the movant asserts that even if all the evidence already presented were admitted as true, it still would not be enough to warrant a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Under Rule 33 (for civil cases):

The defendant files a demurrer to evidence after the plaintiff’s presentation of evidence and rests his/her case.
The court then evaluates whether the plaintiff’s evidence establishes a prima facie case for the cause of action.
If the trial court grants the demurrer to evidence, it amounts to a dismissal of the complaint on the merits (subject to the right to appeal by the plaintiff).
If the trial court denies the demurrer to evidence, the defendant typically proceeds with the presentation of his/her own evidence.

The subject of this discussion is the denial of a demurrer to evidence—specifically why such denial is not subject to an immediate appeal or petition for certiorari, and the legal consequences flowing therefrom.

2. Nature of an Order Denying a Demurrer to Evidence

The hallmark feature relevant here is the interlocutory nature of an order denying a demurrer to evidence:

Interlocutory Order – An order is interlocutory if it does not finally dispose of the case but instead leaves something else to be done by the court before the case is finally decided.
When a court denies a demurrer to evidence, the effect is that the case proceeds to the next stage: the defendant is allowed (or required) to present his/her evidence.
Because the denial does not terminate the litigation, it is deemed interlocutory—no final adjudication on the merits occurs at this stage.

3. General Rule: No Immediate Appeal

Under Philippine procedural rules, interlocutory orders cannot be the subject of an immediate appeal. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which governs appeals from regional trial courts, generally allows only final judgments or orders that dispose of the action or proceeding to be appealed.

An appealable judgment/order is one that completely puts an end to the particular matter in litigation or effectively leaves nothing more to be done in the trial court on the merits.
In contrast, an order denying a demurrer to evidence does not finally resolve the rights and obligations of the parties; therefore, it cannot be appealed right away.

Hence, consistent with well-established doctrine:

“No appeal lies from an order denying a demurrer to evidence because such an order is interlocutory.”

4. General Rule: No Petition for Certiorari

Since an order denying a demurrer to evidence is interlocutory, it is also not proper to assail it via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65—unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the availability of certiorari is confined to extraordinary situations where the lower court has acted capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily in a manner tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.

Why Not Certiorari as a Matter of Right?
- A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal or an alternative to an unripe appeal.
- The petitioner must prove a gross or patent abuse of discretion by the trial court—something far beyond a mere error of judgment.
- In the typical scenario, the denial of a demurrer to evidence simply signals that the court finds a prima facie case exists; it is not usually an example of grave abuse of discretion.
Exception: Grave Abuse of Discretion
- If the defendant believes that the trial court utterly disregarded the rules or jurisprudence (for instance, that there was a complete absence of any evidence on a material fact, yet the demurrer was still denied), a party may attempt a certiorari petition.
- The burden is very high: it must be shown that the trial court acted in a whimsical or arbitrary manner lacking a legal or factual basis.

However, as a general rule absent that extraordinary showing, the correct procedure is:

Proceed with trial.
Present defense evidence.
Await the trial court’s final decision.
Appeal any adverse final judgment, where errors in denying the demurrer (among others) can be raised as assigned errors.

5. Practical Effect of Denial of Demurrer

When a court denies a demurrer to evidence, the defendant generally has two choices:

Present Evidence – Continue with the case, present one’s own evidence, and attempt to refute or overcome the plaintiff’s evidence.
Stand by the Demurrer – In certain scenarios, if the rules or jurisprudence allow, the defendant may choose to waive the right to present evidence and submit the case for decision solely on the plaintiff’s evidence. This is far less common in civil cases (compared to certain strategic uses in criminal cases) and is typically risky.

Because of the denial’s interlocutory character, the ordinary practice is to present evidence, proceed to final judgment, and, if the final judgment is unfavorable, raise the denial of the demurrer as one of the errors on appeal.

6. Distinguishing from a Grant of Demurrer

In contrast, if the court grants the demurrer to evidence:

The complaint is dismissed on the merits (except in very narrow circumstances such as partial grant).
Such a dismissal is final and therefore immediately appealable by the plaintiff.
The entire action, for all intents and purposes, is ended at the trial level. That is the scenario in which immediate appellate review is warranted.

7. Relevant Jurisprudence

Philippine jurisprudence has repeatedly pronounced the principle that an order denying a demurrer is not final, thus not appealable, nor is it ordinarily correctible by certiorari. Some notable pronouncements may be found in Supreme Court decisions that emphasize:

Order Denying a Demurrer Is Interlocutory
- People v. Sandiganbayan, Spouses Arnaldo v. Bañez, among others: underscore that the remedy against a denial of a demurrer is to proceed to trial, present evidence, and appeal if necessary from the final judgment.
Certiorari Requires Grave Abuse of Discretion
- Consistently, the Supreme Court has stated that only in extreme cases where there is a clear departure from the usual judicial procedures—equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction—would a petition for certiorari against the denial be entertained.

8. Rationale Behind the Rule

Avoid Piecemeal Appeals – The rule against appealing interlocutory orders is intended to prevent the appellate courts from being burdened with piecemeal review of every intermediate step.
Maintain Orderly Proceedings – It ensures that the trial proceeds smoothly without interruptions at each ruling the judge issues.
Efficient Use of Judicial Resources – For the judiciary to function effectively, final judgments are preferred as the triggers of appellate jurisdiction. Otherwise, appellate courts would be overwhelmed with multiple, repeated interventions in ongoing cases.

9. Summary and Practical Pointers

Denial of Demurrer = Interlocutory → Not subject to immediate appeal.
No Certiorari unless there is grave abuse of discretion.
Proceed to Present Defense → Best practice: Continue with the proceedings.
Raise Denial as Error on Appeal from Final Judgment → The correctness (or incorrectness) of the denial of the demurrer may be assigned as an error on appeal after the trial court issues its final decision.

10. Conclusion

Under Philippine civil procedure, an order denying a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 is considered interlocutory. Because it does not finally dispose of the case, it is not immediately appealable. Neither is it normally subject to a petition for certiorari except in extraordinary situations where the denial amounts to grave abuse of discretion. The proper course for a party aggrieved by such denial is to continue with the trial, present evidence, await the final judgment, and raise the denial of the demurrer among the issues if an appeal becomes necessary.

This principle underpins the broader judicial policy of minimizing piecemeal appeals and ensuring orderly proceedings, allowing the trial court to fully hear all sides before rendering a definitive and reviewable final judgment.