Matters not appealable

Matters not appealable | Appeal | Post-judgment Remedies | CIVIL PROCEDURE

DISCLAIMER: The following discussion is for general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific questions regarding particular facts or legal issues, you should consult a qualified Philippine attorney.

MATTERS NOT APPEALABLE UNDER PHILIPPINE CIVIL PROCEDURE

Under Philippine law, the general rule is that only final judgments or orders (those that completely dispose of a case, leaving nothing else to be done by the court on the merits) are appealable. In contrast, interlocutory orders (orders that do not terminate or finally dispose of the case and require further proceedings) are not subject to appeal, unless a special statute or rule expressly makes them appealable.

The primary provision that outlines the matters not appealable is Rule 41, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (as amended). Below is the standard enumeration and an explanation of each:

1. Interlocutory Orders

Rule 41, Section 1 (b), Rules of Court:
“No appeal may be taken from … an interlocutory order.”

  1. Meaning

    • An interlocutory order is one that does not dispose of a case completely. It leaves something else to be decided in the trial court. For example, an order granting or denying a motion to amend pleadings, an order setting a case for hearing, or an order denying a motion for summary judgment.

  2. Remedy

    • Because they are not subject to appeal, the typical remedy against an interlocutory order (if it is alleged to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction) is to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, alleged errors in interlocutory orders should be assigned as error on appeal after final judgment.

2. Order Denying a Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

Rule 41, Section 1 (a), Rules of Court:
“No appeal may be taken from … an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration.”

  1. Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

    • A party may move for a new trial or reconsideration of a judgment based on grounds such as errors of law or fact, or newly discovered evidence.
    • Once the motion is denied, that denial is not independently appealable.

  2. Remedy

    • If the underlying judgment is final, the proper course is to appeal the main judgment itself. The denial of the post-judgment motion merges with the judgment.
    • In certain extraordinary situations, if there was grave abuse of discretion, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be available, but only when no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is available.

3. Order Denying a Petition for Relief or Similar Motions

Rule 41, Section 1 (c), Rules of Court:
“No appeal may be taken from … an order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment.”

  1. Petition for Relief

    • A “petition for relief” under the Rules is a remedy seeking to set aside a judgment or final order when a party has been prevented from taking part in the proceeding through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.

  2. Remedy if Denied

    • The denial of that petition or similar motion (e.g., motion to set aside judgment) itself is not appealable.
    • The appropriate remedy could be a Rule 65 certiorari if the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the final judgment stands.

4. Order Dismissing or Disallowing an Appeal

Rule 41, Section 1 (d), Rules of Court:
“No appeal may be taken from … an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal.”

  1. Nature

    • When a court disallows or dismisses an appeal (e.g., for being filed out of time or for nonpayment of docket fees), that order itself is not appealable through an ordinary appeal—doing so would lead to a circular process.

  2. Remedy

    • The aggrieved party may question such an order via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if there is grave abuse of discretion. In some cases, a motion for reconsideration in the trial or appellate court may still be pursued before resorting to a special civil action.

5. Order Denying a Motion to Set Aside a Judgment by Consent, Confession, or Compromise

Rule 41, Section 1 (e), Rules of Court:
“No appeal may be taken from … an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent.”

  1. Judgments by Consent/Compromise

    • Judgments by consent, confession, or compromise are generally immediately final and executory because they are agreements of the parties, sanctioned by the court.
    • When a motion to set aside such a judgment is denied, that denial is not subject to an ordinary appeal.

  2. Remedy

    • Again, if there is an alleged grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion, a Rule 65 petition may be filed.

6. Order of Execution

Rule 41, Section 1 (f), Rules of Court:
“No appeal may be taken from … an order of execution …”

  1. Execution of a Final Judgment

    • Once a judgment is final, the court issues a writ or order of execution.
    • The issuance of a writ of execution of a final judgment is a ministerial duty of the court and is not appealable.

  2. Remedy

    • If the writ of execution varies the terms of the final judgment or is otherwise attended by grave abuse of discretion, a party may resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

7. Judgments or Final Orders for or Against One or More of Several Parties or Several Claims, While the Main Case Is Pending

Rule 41, Section 1 (g), Rules of Court:
“No appeal may be taken from … a judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom.”

  1. Partial Judgment

    • In multi-party or multi-claim litigation, the court may issue a judgment disposing of some (but not all) of the parties or claims.
    • Absent an express order from the court that the partial judgment is immediately final (often called a “partial judgment” or “entry of judgment under Rule 36, Section 2”), it remains interlocutory with respect to the remaining aspects of the case.

  2. Remedy

    • The general rule is to await final judgment on the entire case before appealing. If the trial court issues a special certification or so-called “express determination” that there is no just reason for delay and expressly authorizes immediate appeal of the partial judgment, then an appeal may proceed.

8. Other Similar or Analogous Cases

Rule 41, Section 1, last paragraph (“… such other interlocutory orders as may be provided by the rules.”)

This catch-all provision clarifies that if an order does not finally dispose of the case, or if it is of the same nature as those specifically listed, it cannot be appealed. Examples often cited in jurisprudence include:

  • Order denying a motion for summary judgment (an interlocutory order).
  • Order directing a party to produce documents (mere trial incident).
  • Order denying a motion to dismiss (typically interlocutory as well, unless granted and thereby ending the case).

In these scenarios, once again, the remedy (if at all) is either to raise the error as a ground in the appeal from the final judgment or to pursue Rule 65 certiorari in cases of patent grave abuse of discretion.

THE GENERAL REMEDY: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI (RULE 65)

When an order is not appealable (because it is interlocutory, or otherwise enumerated as non-appealable) yet the court is alleged to have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be available. However, certiorari is an extraordinary remedy subject to strict standards:

  1. No Plain, Speedy, and Adequate Remedy in the Ordinary Course of Law

    • If the perceived error can be addressed on appeal after final judgment, certiorari is generally not allowed.

  2. Grave Abuse of Discretion Amounting to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction

    • The error must be so patent or egregious that it effectively deprives the court of its lawful jurisdiction or power.

In all other situations, the issue on the non-appealable order is simply carried over and raised as an assignment of error when appealing from the final judgment that will ultimately dispose of the entire case.

PRACTICAL POINTS AND JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDANCE

  1. Final vs. Interlocutory

    • The pivotal question is whether the order completely disposes of the action or proceeding. If it does, the order or judgment is final and generally appealable. If it does not, then it is interlocutory and not appealable (unless expressly made so by law or rules).

  2. Policy Reason

    • The reason behind restricting appeals only to final judgments is to prevent undue delay. Allowing appeals of every interlocutory ruling would fragment litigation and unnecessarily clog the appellate courts.

  3. Certification of Partial Judgments

    • Courts may expressly direct the entry of a final judgment on some but not all claims or parties, upon a determination that there is no just reason for delay (akin to Rule 54(b) in other jurisdictions). When such certification is made, appeal can proceed immediately as to those resolved claims.

  4. Exceptions

    • Special laws sometimes carve out their own rules on appealability (e.g., labor cases have their own rules, election contests may have specialized procedures). But in general civil litigation, the enumerations in Rule 41 control.

  5. Case Law Illustrations

    • St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130866, 1998) illustrates that certain orders are challenged via Rule 65, not by an ordinary appeal.
    • Heirs of Soriano v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 139526, 2000) reiterates that an order disallowing an appeal for being out of time must be assailed via certiorari if grave abuse is alleged.

  6. Caution

    • A party incorrectly attempting to appeal a non-appealable order could lose valuable time, as such a notice of appeal may be dismissed. Missing proper deadlines for the correct remedy (e.g., a timely certiorari petition or waiting to assign the error in an appeal of the final judgment) can forfeit the chance to correct the error entirely.

CONCLUSION

In Philippine civil procedure, not all judicial determinations are immediately appealable. The Rules of Court—particularly Rule 41, Section 1—expressly lists certain orders and judgments from which no appeal may be taken. Most commonly, these include interlocutory orders, orders denying post-judgment or relief motions, orders dismissing an appeal, and orders relating to execution of final judgments.

The fundamental approach is:

  1. If the order is final (disposes of the case completely), it is generally appealable.
  2. If the order is interlocutory or listed as non-appealable, the usual recourse is to await the final judgment and assign the error as a ground in the appeal of that final judgment.
  3. If there is grave abuse of discretion, the extraordinary remedy of Rule 65 certiorari may be invoked—but only when no other adequate remedy (like an ordinary appeal after final judgment) is available.

These principles serve the overarching purpose of avoiding piece‑meal appeals and ensuring that the appellate courts review cases in a more streamlined and efficient manner.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login