Fenequito, et al. v. Vergara, Jr.

G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012, Third Division, Peralta, J.

TOPIC: Appeal (from MTC)

DOCTRINE: Section 3(b), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and
Section 1, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, contemplate an
appeal from a final decision or order of the RTC in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction
of the Court of Appeals.

A final order is one that disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular
proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has
been determined. On the other hand, an interlocutory order does not dispose of a case
completely but leaves something more to be done upon its merits.

FACTS:
• An Information for falsification of public documents was filed with the MeTC by the
Assistant City Prosecutor against Rosa Fenequito, Corazon Hernandez, and Lauro
Rodriguez (Fenequito, et al.).
• Fenequito, et al. moved to dismiss the case based on the absence of probable
cause. The MeTC granted the same.
• With the express conformity of the public prosecutor, Bernardo Vergara, Jr.
(Vergara) appealed the case to the RTC.
• The RTC set aside the MeTC’s order and directed the said court to proceed to trial.
• Hence, Fenequito, et al. filed a petition for review before the CA. The CA dismissed
the petition, ruling that the RTC’s decision is interlocutory in nature and thus not
appealable.
• Aggrieved, Fenequito, et al. filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court before the SC.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the decision of the RTC is final as it disposes with finality the issue of
whether the MeTC erred in granting Fenequito’s motion to dismiss
2. Whether it is the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which has authority to file
an appeal with the RTC

RULING:
1. NO. The decision of the RTC setting aside the MeTC’s order and directing the latter
court to proceed to trial is clearly interlocutory as it did not dispose of the case
completely but left something more to be done on its merits.
• One of the grounds relied upon by the CA in dismissing Fenequito’s petition for
review is the latter’s failure to submit copies of the pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent to the petition filed, as required under Section 2, Rule 42
of the Rules of Court.
• Settled is the rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of
due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
• An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply
with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. In this case, Fenequito, et
al had all the opportunity to comply with the Rules, yet they failed to do the
same. On this basis alone, the Court found that the petition is dismissible.
• Citing the case of Basa v. People, the Court held in such case that Section 3(b),
Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Section 1, Rule 42
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, contemplate an appeal from
a final decision or order of the RTC in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction
of the Court of Appeals.
o A final order is one that disposes of the whole subject matter or
terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done
but to enforce by execution what has been determined.
o An interlocutory order does not dispose of a case completely but
leaves something more to be done upon its merits.
 • The Court held in Basa v. People that the decision of the RTC is interlocutory
in nature as it is a denial of petitioners’ motion to quash, thereby leaving
something more to be done, i.e., the continuation of the criminal proceedings
until the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined.
• In this case, the decision of the RTC setting aside the MeTC’s order and
directing the latter court to proceed to trial is clearly interlocutory as it did not
dispose of the case completely but left something more to be done on its merits.

2. NO.
• Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275 (“Reorganizing the Prosecution
Staff of the Department of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and City
Fiscals, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the National
Prosecution Service”), which was the law in force at the time the appeal was
filed, provides that the provincial or the city fiscal shall have charge of the
prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal
ordinances in the courts of such province or city and shall therein
discharge all the duties incident to the institution of criminal
prosecutions.
• In consonance with the above-quoted provision, the fiscal represents the
People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before the trial
courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit
trial courts and the regional trial courts.
• Since the appeal in this case was made with the RTC, clearly, the City
Prosecutor or his assistant (in this case, the Assistant City Prosecutor) had
authority to file the same.