Beta

Flashcards Studio

Practice bar questions and get clear AI feedback on every answer.

Study Settings View Stats

Topic

Question Type

Essay Multiple Choice

Question Source

All Jurisprudence based

0 tracked cards Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises

Facts: A private law firm, Orion & Partners, files a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus directly in the Supreme Court under Rule 65 challenging a Court of Appeals decision that denied its petition for certiorari against a Civil Service Commission order in a government-employee dismissal case. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to review the CSC order. Orion contends that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by misapplying the correct standard for reviewing lower court acts. The Supreme Court is asked to decide: (a) Identify the controlling doctrine governing the Supreme Court's review of Court of Appeals decisions via certiorari and the standard applied; (b) Distinguish between grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and ordinary errors of law or fact in the CA's decision; (c) Apply the doctrine to Orion's case and determine whether the petition for certiorari should be granted.

Choose the Best Answer

The controlling doctrine is that the Supreme Court's review under Rule 65 is discretionary and confined to grave abuse; thus a petition should be granted only if the CA's ruling shows lack of jurisdiction; in this scenario, the petition should be granted. The controlling doctrine is that certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of law; grave abuse is not a ground for intervention; thus the petition should be denied. The controlling doctrine is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the Supreme Court will intervene when the Court of Appeals misapplies the standard for reviewing lower court acts; in this fact pattern, the CA's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction to review the CSC order constitutes grave abuse, so the petition should be granted. The controlling doctrine is de novo review of CA findings in certiorari petitions; the Supreme Court may substitute its own findings of fact; thus the petition should be granted.

Load another random question

Your Progress

No data Retention

Tracked Cards: 0
Accuracy: No data
Retained: 0

View Detailed Analytics

Difficulty Breakdown

Answer flashcards to build a real score-based difficulty breakdown.

Current Streak 0 Days

Start a streak with this card.

Suggested Decks

View All

Leech Cards

Review

No recent weak flashcards in your saved workbook.

More

Flashcards Studio

Question

Choose the Best Answer

Hello