This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-08-28 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| 4.2. What is the specific involvement of, or the specific acts done by, each of the other defendant corporations in obtaining the contract referred to by plaintiff?" The Republic cannot plausibly evade the consequences of its failure to answer written interrogatories and requests for admission. If the plaintiff fails or refuses to answer the interrogatories, it may be a good basis for the dismissal of his complaint for non- suit unless he can justify such failure or refusal.[46] | |||||
|
2004-09-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The petition for certiorari filed by Edwin questioning the RTC's denial of his motion to dismiss merely states a blanket allegation of "grave abuse of discretion." An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and is not a proper subject of a petition for certiorari.[14] Even in the face of an error of judgment on the part of a judge denying the motion to dismiss, certiorari will not lie. Certiorari is not a remedy to correct errors of procedure.[15] The proper remedy against an order denying a motion to dismiss is to file an answer and interpose as affirmative defenses the objections raised in the motion to dismiss. It is only in the presence of extraordinary circumstances evincing a patent disregard of justice and fair play where resort to a petition for certiorari is proper.[16] | |||||