Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Qcourt: 3repuhltc of Tbe
Qcourt: 3repuhltc of Tbe
~upreme QCourt
.:fflanila
FIRST DIVISION
SERENO C.J,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
-versus- BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
REYES,JJ.
DECISION
Rollo. pp. 40-47. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate
Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Isaias P. Dicdican.
!d. at 49-50. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate
Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Isaias P. Dicdican.
.1'
Decision 2 G.R. No. 185595
On May 19, 1998, the trial court issued an Order4 granting petitioner’s
application for support pendente lite. Said order states in part:
x x x x
SO ORDERED.5
The aforesaid order and subsequent orders for support pendente lite
were the subject of G.R. No. 139337 entitled “Ma. Carminia C. Roxas v.
Court of Appeals and Jose Antonio F. Roxas” decided by this Court on
August 15, 2001.6 The Decision in said case declared that “the proceedings
and orders issued by the trial court in the application for support pendente
lite (and the main complaint for annulment of marriage) in the re-filed case,
that is, in Civil Case No. 97-0608 were not rendered null and void by the
omission of a statement in the certificate of non-forum shopping regarding
the prior filing and dismissal without prejudice of Civil Case No. 97-0523
which involves the same parties.” The assailed orders for support pendente
lite were thus reinstated and the trial court resumed hearing the main case.
3
Records, pp. 30-38.
4
Rollo, pp. 85-87. Penned by Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort.
5
Id. at 87.
6
Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 207, 211.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 185595
After hearing, the trial court issued an Order9 dated March 7, 2005
granting the motion to reduce support and denying petitioner’s motion for
spousal support, increase of the children’s monthly support pendente lite and
support-in-arrears. The trial court considered the following circumstances
well-supported by documentary and testimonial evidence: (1) the spouses’
eldest child, Jose Antonio, Jr. is a Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman and is
already earning a monthly salary; (2) all the children stay with private
respondent on weekends in their house in Pasay City; (3) private respondent
has no source of income except his salary and benefits as City Councilor; (4)
the voluminous documents consisting of official receipts in payment of
various billings including school tuition fees, private tutorials and purchases
of children’s school supplies, personal checks issued by private respondent,
as well as his own testimony in court, all of which substantiated his claim
that he is fulfilling his obligation of supporting his minor children during the
pendency of the action; (5) there is no proof presented by petitioner that she
is not gainfully employed, the spouses being both medical doctors; (6) the
unrebutted allegation of private respondent that petitioner is already in the
United States; and (7) the alleged arrearages of private respondent was not
substantiated by petitioner with any evidence while private respondent had
duly complied with his obligation as ordered by the court through his
7
Records, p. 10058.
8
Id. at 10075-10084.
9
Id. at 1582-1586.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 185595
overpayments in other aspects such as the children’s school tuition fees, real
estate taxes and other necessities.
On May 16, 2005, the trial court rendered its Decision11 in Civil Case
No. 97-0608 decreeing thus:
SO ORDERED.12
10
Id. at 1593-1639. See RTC Order dated June 23, 2005 noting the typographical error in the Order dated
“May 4, 2004”, and correcting the year as 2005. Id. at 1664.
11
Rollo, pp. 89-100. Penned by Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.
12
Id. at 99-100.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 185595
In her appeal brief, petitioner emphasized that she is not appealing the
Decision dated May 16, 2005 which had become final as no appeal
therefrom had been brought by the parties or the City Prosecutor or the
Solicitor General. Petitioner pointed out that her appeal is “from the RTC
Order dated March 7, 2005, issued prior to the rendition of the decision in
the main case”, as well as the May 4, 2005 Order denying her motion for
partial reconsideration.13
The core issue presented is whether the March 7, 2005 and May 4,
2005 Orders on the matter of support pendente lite are interlocutory or final.
This Court has laid down the distinction between interlocutory and
final orders, as follows:
13
CA rollo, pp. 126-127.
14
Rollo, p. 572.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 185595
xxxx
marriage and legal separation. These include orders for spousal support,
child support, child custody, visitation rights, hold departure, protection and
administration of common property.
We disagree.
18
United Overseas Bank (formerly Westmont Bank) v. Ros, G.R. No. 171532, August 7, 2007, 529
SCRA 334, 343-344, citing Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140576-99, December 13,
2004, 446 SCRA 166, 177.
19
Republic v. Sandiganbayan,(Fourth Division), G.R. No. 152375, December 13, 2011, 662 SCRA 152,
177.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 185595
20
Florenz D. Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. I, 2005 Ed. p. 671.
21
Records, pp. 439-440.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 185595
SO ORDERED.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 185595
WE CONCUR:
~~~~
TERESITA.J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certifY that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.