Practice question
After an adverse NLRC ruling and denial of a timely motion for reconsideration, a party files a timely CA petition expressly asking only for a fresh choice between two equally supported factual views. It identifies no lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It insists that timely filing alone guarantees reversal. Which is best?
- Timeliness automatically proves grave abuse.
- The CA must always choose the petitioner's factual version.
- Rule65 requires the specified jurisdictional abuse; timely filing alone does not establish entitlement to reversal.
- The larger employer automatically wins.
- A Rule65 petition is necessarily a second ordinary merits trial.
Legal references
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/36394 — St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R.130866, September16 1998, main opinion.
- https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_180962_2014.html — Philtranco Service Enterprises v. PWU-AGLO, G.R.180962, February26 2014, main opinion; Rule65 Sections1 and4.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.