This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-01-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While petitioner correctly invokes the ruling in Atienza v. Court of Appeals[15] to postulate that not every denial of a motion to dismiss can be corrected by certiorari under Rule 65 and that, as a general rule, the remedy from such denial is to appeal in due course after a decision has been rendered on the merits, there are exceptions thereto, as when the court in denying the motion to dismiss acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with patent grave abuse of discretion,[16] or when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief,[17] or when the ground for the motion to dismiss is improper venue,[18] res judicata,[19] or lack of jurisdiction[20] as in the case at bar. | |||||