Motion for Reconsideration of an Interlocutory Order
Philippine procedural law overview (as of 30 May 2025)
1. What exactly is an “interlocutory order”?
An interlocutory order is a resolution issued in the course of a case that does not finally dispose of the action; something else still has to be done before the court can render a final judgment. Classic illustrations are:
| Common Examples | Rule Invoked |
|---|---|
| Denial of a motion to dismiss | Rule 15 & Rule 16 |
| Grant or denial of bail | Rule 114 |
| Orders on discovery disputes | Rule 23–29 |
| Denial of a demurrer to evidence | Rule 33 |
| Issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction | Rule 58 |
If the order leaves nothing else for the trial court to do except execute it, it is final; otherwise it is interlocutory (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 173473-74, 15 June 2015).
2. Why the distinction matters
Final orders are appealable (Rule 41); interlocutory orders are not. The Rules instead require the aggrieved party to move the same court to correct its error—hence the motion for reconsideration (MR)—and only in exceptional cases to go to the appellate courts by certiorari under Rule 65.
3. Statutory & regulatory framework
| Source | Key Provisions affecting MR of interlocutory orders |
|---|---|
| Rules of Civil Procedure (re-codified A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, effective 1 May 2020) | • Rule 15 §§3-6 (definition, classifications, service) • Rule 15 §5(f) – MR of an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss is a non-litigious motion • Rule 15 §6 – Litigious motions include all other MRs of interlocutory orders |
| Rules of Criminal Procedure | • Rule 114 §7 (bail-related orders) • Rule 119 §23 (demurrer to evidence) • Rule 121 – MR applies to judgments, but practice allows an MR of an interlocutory order under the court’s inherent power |
| 2017 Guidelines for Continuous Trial (criminal) | • §III(D) – MR of interlocutory orders shall not suspend trial and must be resolved within 10 calendar days |
| 2023 Revised Guidelines on Pleadings | • 10-page limit on most motions; applies even to MRs of interlocutory orders |
4. Filing mechanics
| Item | Current Practice |
|---|---|
| Period | The Rules set no fixed deadline; jurisprudence treats an MR of an interlocutory order as timely “within a reasonable period” after notice. Best practice: 15 calendar days from receipt to mirror Rule 37. (Some trial courts adopt a 5-day internal deadline—always check local standing orders.) |
| Form | Ordinary motion (Rule 15): • Caption & title (“Motion for Reconsideration [Interlocutory Order dated ___]”) • Statement of material dates (when order received, when MR filed) is recommended. • Arguments in numbered paragraphs. • Verification not required. • Must comply with the 10-page limit and the single-spacing exception for quoted material. |
| Classification | • Non-litigious if it concerns denial of a motion to dismiss ⇒ the court resolves motu proprio within 5 calendar days without need for comment. • Litigious in all other situations ⇒ adverse party may file an Opposition within 5 calendar days; court resolves within 15 calendar days of the opposition or lapse thereof. |
| Mode of service | Personal, registered mail, accredited courier, or electronic mail (Rule 13 as amended). Courts now encourage e-service; attach proof of e-mailing. |
5. Grounds for reconsideration
- Errors of law – misapplication or misinterpretation of statutes, rules, or jurisprudence.
- Errors of fact – the court overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated evidence.
- Serious procedural irregularities – denial of due process, ex parte issuance of orders that require notice, etc.
- Supervening events – new matter arising after the hearing but before the order becomes final (e.g., compromise, supervening SC decision).
Newly-discovered evidence is rarely invoked because the standards under Rule 37 §1(b) are tailored for final judgments; nevertheless, courts have discretion to accept it if justice demands.
6. Effects of filing
| Aspect | Effect |
|---|---|
| Does it stay proceedings? | No automatic stay. Unless the court, in its discretion, issues a suspension order, the main case proceeds (Rule 15 §5 & Continuous Trial Guidelines). |
| Does it toll the appeal period? | N/A – the challenged order is not appealable. The appeal clock starts only when a final judgment is rendered. |
| Second MR? | The absolute bar on a second MR under the Neypes doctrine applies only to final judgments. A court may entertain a second MR of an interlocutory order for compelling reasons, but abuse of this latitude may be sanctioned. |
7. Interface with certiorari (Rule 65)
The “prior MR rule”: certiorari generally lies only if the petitioner first moved for reconsideration of the interlocutory order. Exceptions:
- The order is a patent nullity (lack of jurisdiction);
- Issues are purely legal;
- There is urgent necessity and irreparable injury;
- Filing an MR would be useless (e.g., judge openly admits bias);
- Extreme urgency for a TRO/ WPI;
- Criminal double jeopardy situations.
Failing to file an MR when none of the exceptions is present is fatal to the certiorari petition (Land Bank v. Listana, G.R. 197160, 26 Mar 2014).
8. Criminal-procedure wrinkles
| Scenario | Special Rules |
|---|---|
| Bail – denial or cancellation | An MR is allowed and may attach updated proof of solvency or change in circumstances. If denied, immediate recourse is certiorari/ habeas corpus to the higher court. |
| Demurrer to evidence (denied) | The denial is interlocutory: accused may file an MR without seeking leave; trial proceeds. Note: Filing a demurrer with leave and losing waives the right to present evidence; an MR does not revive that right. |
| Dismissal after prosecution rests (granted demurrer) | Here the order is final as to the accused; the prosecution may resort to appeal or certiorari, and the accused may not be placed in double jeopardy if dismissal is based on merits. An MR of an interlocutory dismissal by the accused is possible. |
9. Selected jurisprudence
| Case | Gist |
|---|---|
| Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 213532-33 (30 June 2021) | Clarified that an MR of an interlocutory order is still required before certiorari, even when the act complained of is grave abuse of discretion, reinforcing the exhaustion doctrine. |
| Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. v. Sales, G.R. 167679 (4 Feb 2008) | No appeal lies from interlocutory orders; the proper remedy is MR and, if denied, petition for certiorari. |
| Solar Team Ent. v. Ricafort, G.R. 140863-64 (23 Jan 2002) | Filing an MR of an interlocutory order does not interrupt the trial court’s authority to resolve the merits; forum-shopping sanctions await repetitive MRs. |
| People v. Gozo, G.R. 202347 (13 Jan 2021) | Denial of bail may be questioned first via MR; certiorari lies only after such MR, absent extraordinary circumstances. |
10. Practical drafting checklist
- Check classification – if it falls under §5(f) (denial of motion to dismiss), label the MR “non-litigious” to trigger the 5-day resolution clock.
- Observe page limits – 10 pages, single-spaced; include a concise “Summary of Arguments” if space is tight.
- Pinpoint citations – quote only the specific paragraph of the order being attacked; attach the assailed order as Annex “A”.
- Request specific relief – “WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant respectfully prays that the Order dated 12 May 2025 be set aside and the Motion to Dismiss be granted, or alternatively that discovery be reopened…”
- Prepare for swift denial – have a draft Rule 65 petition ready; note the 60-day certiorari clock begins from receipt of the denial of the MR, not from the interlocutory order itself.
- Mind sanctions – frivolous or dilatory MRs may be met with P 5,000 to P 30,000 fines under the Efficient Use of Paper Rule and Sec. 3, Rule 15; repeat offenders risk disciplinary referral.
11. Key take-aways
- A motion for reconsideration remains the first and indispensable remedy against an interlocutory order in Philippine practice.
- It is governed primarily by Rule 15 (not Rule 37) after the 2020 procedural reforms.
- Timeliness, brevity, and precision are the practitioner’s watchwords—courts now operate under strict disposal deadlines.
- An MR does not stop the main case from moving forward unless the court expressly orders a stay.
- Upon denial, the aggrieved party must weigh the cost-benefit of Rule 65 certiorari versus waiting to raise the issue on appeal from the final judgment.
Handled properly, the motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is a focused, efficient way to persuade the trial court to correct itself—without burdening the appellate docket—while preserving your client’s rights for the battles that truly matter.