Practice question
A court with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter reaches a disputed evidentiary conclusion without any established jurisdictional grave abuse. The losing party later calls the decision utterly void in another case solely because a different inference was possible. Which is best?
- An alternative inference automatically destroys jurisdiction
- Every evidence disagreement is collateral nullity
- The alleged mistake remains distinct from a truly void judgment; the collateral theory cannot bypass the proper merits-review requirements
- A later case number restarts every appeal
- Only the losing party determines finality
Legal references
- G.R.241494, April3 2024, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/apr2024/gr_241494_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.