This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-08-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. This is because a certiorari writ is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The appropriate course of action of the movant in such event is to file an answer and interpose as affirmative defenses the objections raised in the motion to dismiss. If, later, the decision of the trial judge is adverse, the movant may then elevate on appeal the same issues raised in the motion.[27] | |||||
|
2010-01-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Respondents did not move for the reconsideration of the May 25, 2004 decision of the RTC. Considering that the RTC leniently granted respondents' motions for extension to file an answer, it did not render the assailed order and decision arbitrarily by reason of personal hostility.[25] Thus, a motion for reconsideration, if meritorious, was not useless.[26] Consequently, the petition for certiorari should have been dismissed outright for respondent's failure to file a motion for reconsideration. | |||||