1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Let it be underscored that a final judgment is one that finally disposes of a case and leaves nothing more to be done by the court to it. Once rendered, the task of the court to decide the controversy or determine the rights and liabilities of the parties comes to an end. On the other hand, an interlocutory order is one that does not finally dispose of an action as there are other matters that need to be done by the court. A final judgment is appealable while a interlocutory order is not.[47] Here, the RTC-Tagum adjudged respondent guilty of indirect contempt imposing against her the penalty of imprisonment of 15 days and ordering her to pay a fine in the amount of P30,000.00. By such ruling, the RTC-Tagum had finally disposed of the matters surrounding the charge of contempt. Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, to contest the ruling in the contempt charge, the proper remedy for respondent was to file an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.[48] Finally, the Court agrees with the CA that the RTC-Tagum's disposition on the forfeiture of the subject properties in favor of petitioner as also embodied in its Resolution dated August 15, 2016 was a final judgment leaving nothing more to be done by the Court. The pronouncement carried with it a determination of the rights as well as the liabilities of the parties. This being so, the proper recourse that should have been taken by the aggrieved party was to appeal the ruling against her. Hence, there is no merit in fact and in law for the RTC-Tagum to deny respondent's notice of appeal. In view of all the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds that the CA properly granted the petition for certiorari. First, the RTC-Tagum gravely abused its discretion in granting the Motion to Account in violation of the principles governing the immutabillity of judgment as well as forum shopping. Second, the RTC-Tagum committed grave abuse of discretion in finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt despite non-compliance with the procedure for filing the same. Third, the RTC-Tagum also gravely abused its discretion when it denied due course to respondent's notice of appeal when it involved a final judgment, which is appealable. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 23, 2017 and Resolution dated August 25, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07775-MIN are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Hernando, and Zalameda,** JJ., concur. A. Reyes, Jr., J., on leave. * Eumatsu in some parts of the rollo. ** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2724 dated October 25, 2019. [1] Rollo, pp. 19-47. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65967 8/11