A. No.

Although interlocutory orders are subject to certiorari under rule 65, it is, however, subject to the
time honored doctrine of heirarchy of courts.

B. File an MR inorder to exhaust administrative remedies, and as a condition precedent to file a

certiorari by way of rule 65.
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal
under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause action refers to a situation where
the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. x x x If the allegations of the
complaint do not aver the concurrence of the elements of cause of action, the complaint becomes
vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. Evidently, it is not
the lack or absence of a cause of action that is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint but the fact
that the complaint states no cause of action. Failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the
earliest stages of an action through a motion to dismiss, but lack of cause of action may be raised at any
time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of the stipulations, admissions, or
evidence presented (MACASLANG VS. ZAMORA [2011]).
No, the issuance of the writ is procedurally firm. The judgment may be executed by mere motion within
5 years from its finality.
Rtc erred. While the grant or denial of the preliminary injunction rests on the sound discretion of the
court taking cognizance of the case, and judicial discretion of the court in injunctive matters should not
be interfered with,24 in the absence of clear and legal right, however, the issuance of a writ of
injunction constitutes a grave abuse of discretion. Tml vs bpi 2013 -The pendency of the action assailing
the validity of the mortgage should not bar the issuance of the writ of possession.1âwphi1 A pending
action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure does not stay the issuance of a writ of possession.22
Regardless of the pendency of such suit, the purchaser remains entitled to a writ of possession, without
prejudice, of course, to the eventual outcome of the pending annulment case.
However, it must be clarified that respondents' failure to pay the required docket fees, per se, should
not necessarily lead to the dismissal of their counterclaim. It has long been settled that while the court
acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees, its non-
payment at the time of filing of the initiatory pleading does not automatically cause its dismissal
provided that: (a) the fees are paid within a reasonable period; and (b) there was no intention on the
part of the claimant to defraud the government.
CA is correct in dismissing rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman's admin case decision. It is subject for a
petition for review by way of r.43 to CA.

As to the dismissal of the CA on the finding of probable cause of the ombudsman, it is wrong. The
remedy is rule 65 certiorari.
A. No. There is no deprivation of liberty in which the government is in connivance with mr. B

B. Writ of habeas corpus in relation to custody of minors

The procedure laid down in rule 108 is not a summary proceeding per se. It requires publication of the
petition; mandates the inclusion of parties of all persons who may claim interest which would be
affected by cancellation or correction; it also requires civil registrar and any person-in interest to file
their opposition , if any ;
If direct contempt, assail it by way of certiorari r65

If indirect contempt, file an appeal. It will automatically suspend the execution.

) Yes. An inquest is conducted, in lieu of a preliminary investigation, when a person is lawfully arrested
without a warrant.

b) Yes. The person arrested without a warrant may request for the conduct of a preliminary
investigation within 5 days from learning of the filing in court of an Information against him.

. A. Bail is a matter if right before conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and before conviction by the Regional
Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

B. No. the prosecution's objection is not correct. The grant of bail should not be conditioned upon the
prior arraignment of the accused. In cases where bails is authorized, bail should be granted before
arraignment otherwise the accused will be precluded from filing a motion to quash which is to be done
before arraignment.
a) No. The Rules of Court explicitly provides that if the defense files a Demurrer to Evidence without
leave of court, the defense thereby waives its right to present its evidence, even if the demurrer is
denied; whereas, if a prior leave of court was filed, the defense will still be permitted to present its
evidence, despite the denial of the demurrer.

b) The prosecution's further recourse is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

The grant of a demurrer operates as an acquittal of the accused on the merits of the case. Under the
Finality of Acquittal Doctrine, the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal of the accused without
violating the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy.

Thus, the prosecution may file a Petition for Certiorari, on the ground that the State was deprived of due
process due to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
RTC in granting the demurrer, and that, precisely, there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
A. A. No, since it was a conditional plea, the trial court should have vacated such plea and entered a plea
of not guilty which would require a full-blown trial before judgment may be rendered.

B. No, for double jeopardy to attach, the plea must be valid. In the case at bar, an invalid plea is
demonstrated.
a) No, the objection of R's counsel should not be sustained.

The Best Evidence Rule applies only to documentary evidence, and not to object (real) evidence.

The photocopies were not presented as documentary evidence, because they weren't presented as
proof of the contents thereof. On the contrary, the photocopies were presented as object (real)
evidence, since they were addressed to the senses of the court; precisely, because they were presented
as proof of the existence of the contracts.

No, the marital disqualification rule does not apply in this case where the crime has been committed
against the direct descendant of the wife. Such as in this case, the crime of serious physical injuries was
committed against C, a direct descendant of Mrs. N, the marital disqualification rule cannot then be
invoked.
No, the son (C) may testify against Mr. M. Under Section 25 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence, a
person cannot be compelled to testify against its parents, other direct ascendants, children, or other
direct descendants. The rule, however, does not preclude or prevent one from testifying against such
parent, direct ascendant, child, direct descendant. Such as in this case, C was not shown to have been
compelled to testify against M. Thus, the filial privilege does not apply in this instance where C has not
been compelled to testify.