Which option correctly describes the proper remedy for an error of jurisdiction?

Which option correctly describes the proper remedy for an error of jurisdiction?

• A. Appeal
• B. Extraordinary writ of certiorari
• C. Writ of prohibition
• D. Motion for new trial

Answer: (B)

When a court acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the proper remedy is an extraordinary writ that seeks review of those acts. A certiorari allows a higher court to examine the lower court’s proceedings to determine whether there was a lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse, and to annul or modify the order as needed. This is different from an appeal, which reviews the merits of a decision that the court had power to issue in the first place; if there’s no jurisdiction, there’s nothing solid to appeal. Prohibition, by contrast, is a preventive tool used to stop a court from continuing proceedings when there is a question of lack of jurisdiction. It’s about halting future actions, not correcting a past act already rendered. A motion for a new trial is a post-trial remedy that argues errors within the trial process itself but presumes the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. Thus, for an error of jurisdiction, certiorari is the appropriate remedy because it directly addresses the jurisdictional defect and corrects the acted-upon order.

When a court acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the proper remedy is an extraordinary writ that seeks review of those acts. A certiorari allows a higher court to examine the lower court’s proceedings to determine whether there was a lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse, and to annul or modify the order as needed. This is different from an appeal, which reviews the merits of a decision that the court had power to issue in the first place; if there’s no jurisdiction, there’s nothing solid to appeal.

Prohibition, by contrast, is a preventive tool used to stop a court from continuing proceedings when there is a question of lack of jurisdiction. It’s about halting future actions, not correcting a past act already rendered. A motion for a new trial is a post-trial remedy that argues errors within the trial process itself but presumes the court had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Thus, for an error of jurisdiction, certiorari is the appropriate remedy because it directly addresses the jurisdictional defect and corrects the acted-upon order.