Practice question
A litigant has an available, adequate Rule 45 appeal from a final CTA En Banc civil disposition but chooses Rule 65 solely to avoid that appeal’s requirements. What does Aichi explain?
- Rule 65 is not a substitute where the ordinary adequate appeal is available
- The two remedies are always identical
- Any remedy chosen by counsel automatically confers jurisdiction
- Rule 45 is abolished for tax cases
- Every adverse judgment proves grave abuse
Legal references
- Aichi Forging v. CTA En Banc, G.R. 193625, August 30, 2017 (review-remedy holding): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr_193625_2017.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.