Flashcards Studio

Civil Action No. 2024-00345, RTC, Branch 9, San Pablo City, Laguna. The RTC rendered a final judgment on the merits in a mortgage-foreclosure suit in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff did not file a motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and/or mandamus under Rule 65 challenging the RTC judgment on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, including the RTC’s erroneous admission of a mortgage instrument and the trial court’s denial of a motion for a continuance to present crucial witnesses. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 is the proper remedy for RTC judgments in civil actions. (a) Is the Court of Appeals correct on the proper remedy? Explain the controlling doctrine on remedies from RTC final judgments to the Court of Appeals. (b) When is a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals proper instead of an ordinary appeal? (c) Apply to facts: what is the correct course for the plaintiff to challenge the RTC judgment, and what would be the proper final forum for review if the CA ruling is adverse?