Doctrine of Procedural Void

As a rule, there can be no appeal from an interlocutory order, except if a party is caught in a procedural void. (Go vs. CA, G.R. No. 128954, October 8, 1998). In this case, a suit for ejectment was pending when an action to declare the title of the plaintiff null and void was filed. A motion to suspend the ejectment case granted, but the Supreme Court said, no. Appeal was made and it was treated as a special civil action for certiorari.

Case references:

Gachon vs. Devera, et al., G.R. No. 116695, June 20, 1997 where the Supreme Court ruled that a motion for extension of time to file answer is not proper in the Summary Procedure. It is dilatory.

Lucas vs. Fabros

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226, January 31, 2000

As a rule, a motion for reconsideration is not proper in the Rule on Summary Procedure. The exception is if the order is merely interlocutory.

d.)  Complex remedies cannot be availed of

People vs. Sandiganbayan

491 SCRA 185 [2006]

Prosecution cannot simultaneously avail of the remedies of special civil action for certiorari, petition for review on certiorari or appeal in civil cases. The remedies are exclusive.

Nuñez vs. GSIS Family Bank, et al.

G.R. No. 163988, November 17, 2005



An appeal under Rule 45 and at the same time as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is frowned upon. They are mutually exclusive and not alternative; not successive.