Practice question
A tribunal has power over the subject but allegedly acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Assume all Rule 65 requirements, including absence of appeal or another plain, speedy, adequate remedy, are met. Is relief impossible simply because initial subject-matter power existed?
- Yes, original power immunizes every later act.
- No; Rule 65 separately permits the specified challenge to grave abuse, subject to its strict requirements.
- No, because every adverse order automatically proves grave abuse.
- Yes, unless the respondent agrees.
- No, because certiorari is an unrestricted substitute for appeal.
Legal references
- Mazy's Capital v Republic, G.R. No. 259815, August 5, 2024, main decision, jurisdiction and its exercise (not historical monetary amounts): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/aug2024/gr_259815_2024.html
- Galang v Wallis, G.R. No. 223434, July 3, 2019, main decision, general and special jurisdiction (not historical monetary thresholds): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/jul2019/gr_223434_2019.html
- Rules of Court, Rule 65 Section 1, certiorari requirements, read with current amendments: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.