SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
Asynchronous Activity
Special Civil Actions
1. What is quieting of title?
In the case of Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, an action for quieting of title is
essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity and its purpose is to secure" an
adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the
complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be
forever afterward free from any danger of hostile claim." In an action for quieting of title,
the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and
other claimants, not only to place things in their proper place, to make the one who has
no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of
both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property
dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may
desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best.
2. What are the requisites for quieting of title?
According to the Heirs of Tappa v. Heirs of Bacud, G.R. No. 187633, April 4, 2016, for
an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely:
a. the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the
real property subject of the action; and
b. the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his
title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
3. Is there a cause of action in quieting of title?
No. According to Republic v. Mangotara, it must be borne in mind that the concept of a
cause of action in ordinary civil actions does not apply to quieting of title. In an action for
quieting of title, the subject matter is the title sought to have quieted. "Title" is not limited
to the certificate of registration under the Torrens System (i.e., OCT or TCT). Pursuant to
Article 477 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest
in, the real property subject of the action for quieting of title.
4. When is the remedy of quieting of title proper?
Under the Art. 476 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, whenever there is a cloud on title
to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in
fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title,
an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action may also
be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein.
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
5. What is the scope of certiorari under Rule 64?
Under Section 1, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, the scope of certiorari is to govern the
review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and
the Commission on Audit.
6. What is the Constitutional basis for certiorari under Rule 64?
The Constitutional basis for certiorari under Rule 64 is Article IX, Section 7 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution. It provides that each Commission shall decide by a majority vote
of all its Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of
its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required
by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided
by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
7. What is the remedy over awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the
CSC?
In the case of Department of Education v. Cuanan, G.R. No. 169013, the remedy of an
aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is to file a petition for review thereof
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from notice of the resolution.
Recourse to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 renders the petition dismissible for
being the wrong remedy.
8. What is the period within which to file the petition?
Section 3 Rule 64 of the Rules of Court provides that the petition shall be filed within
thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final
order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned,
shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may
file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days
in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
9. Distinguish the application of Rule 65 to judgments of the COMELEC and COA
and the application of Rule 65 to other tribunals, persons and officers
Pursuant to Pates v. Commission on Elections, the difference between Rule 65 to
judgments of the COMELEC and COA and Rule 65 to other tribunals, persons and
officers:
As to period:
Rule 64 should be filed within 30 days, while Rule 65 should be filed within 60
days.
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
As to court who has jurisdiction:
Rule 64 is exclusively with the Supreme Court, while in Rule 65 the Supreme
Court has concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA, and in proper cases, with
the RTC.
As to application of hierarchy of courts:
Hierarchy of courts has no application in Rule 64, while Rule 65 requires that the
hierarchy of courts be followed.
As to application of fresh period rule:
Fresh period rule does not apply to Rule 64, while the same applies to Rule 65.
10. Does the review under Rule 65 apply to decisions of a COMELEC Division?
No. The 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly provides that the power of this Court to
review election cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC
only extends to final decisions or resolutions of the COMELEC en banc, not to
interlocutory orders issued by a Division thereof.
11. Can the Supreme Court dismiss the petition outright? If yes, on what grounds?
Yes. According to Rule 64, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, the Court may dismiss the
petition outright. The Court may also dismiss the petition if it was filed manifestly for
delay or the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
12. What is the effect of the filing of the petition?
Section 8, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court states that the filing of a petition for certiorari
shall not stay the execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed, unless the Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may
deem just.
13. Provide the nature and definition of certiorari
In the case of Angara v. Fedman Development Corp., G.R. No. 156822, Certiorari under
Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility
tool in the legal workshop. It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is
to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction. It can be invoked only for an error of
jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a
quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
It is settled that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is
an original action, independent from the principal action, and not a part or a continuation
of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of.
14. Distinguish discretionary acts from ministerial acts
In the case of Mallari vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 157660,
the distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A purely
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of
facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without
regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act
done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide
how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial.
The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise
of official discretion or judgment. Discretion, as thus intended, means the power or right
conferred upon the office by law of acting officially under certain circumstances
according to the dictates of his own judgment and conscience and not controlled by the
judgment or conscience or others.
15. Distinguish Errors of judgment from Errors of jurisdiction
An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without
or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack
or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of
certiorari. An Error in judgement is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction. (People v. Tria-Tirona, G.R. No. 130106, July 15, 2005)
16. What are the requisites for a special civil action for certiorari to prosper?
The following requisites must concur for a special civil action for certiorari to prosper:
a. It must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions;
b. The tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
c. There is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
17. Define judicial function
In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity
Commission, 543 Phil. 318, a respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where
he has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties
are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of
the parties.
18. Define quasi-judicial function
Pursuant to Clark Investors and Locators Association, Inc. v. Secretary of Finance, G.R.
No. 200670, Quasi-judicial function, a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc.,
of public administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.
19. Define the following: without jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, and grave abuse
of discretion
The case of Madrigal Transport Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corp., G.R.No. 156067,
August 11, 2004 defined without jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, and grave abuse of
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
discretion. "Without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of
authority. There is "excess of jurisdiction" when the court transcends its power or acts
without any statutory authority. "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in
other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion,
prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount
to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined
or to act at all in contemplation of law.
20. When is a remedy plain, speedy, and adequate?
A remedy which is equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient, not merely a remedy which
at some time in the future will bring about a revival of the judgment of the lower court
complained of in the certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which will promptly relieve the
petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior court or
tribunal. (Silvestre v. Torres, G.R. No. 38952, [February 21, 1933], 57 PHIL 885-894)
21. Can certiorari be a substitute for an appeal? Are there exceptions to the said rule?
No. Certiorari cannot be substitute certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an
appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned
such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal
or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will
not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. (Madrigal Transport
Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corp., G.R. No. 156067)
Yes, there are exceptions to the said rule. They are:
a. where appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy and
sufficient
b. In those instances where this Court allowed petitions for certiorari
notwithstanding the existence of appeal therein, the orders complained of were
either issued in excess of or without jurisdiction, or that, for certain special
considerations, as public welfare or public policy, this Court has decided to
entertain the action.
c. Where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution
as, in case of acquittal, there is could be no remedy.
d. The utter disregard by Judge de Guzman of the requirements laid down by Rule
126 of the Rules of Court renders the warrant in question null and void. It has
been held that where the order complained of is a patent nullity, a petition for
certiorari and mandamus may properly be entertained despite the existence of
the remedy of appeal.
e. We have granted the writ in cases where it is shown that appeal would be
inadequate, slow, insufficient and will not promptly relieve petitioner from the
injurious effects of the order complained of.
22. Can a party still avail of certiorari to challenge a writ of execution even after he
has perfected an appeal from a judgment by default?
Generally No, Unless the party has been illegally declared in default. It does not
preclude a defendant who has been illegally declared in default from pursuing a more
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
speedy and efficacious remedy, like a petition for certiorari to have the judgment by
default set aside as a nullity. (Omico Mining and Industrial Corp. v. Vallejos, G.R. No. L38974)
23. Is a writ of certiorari demandable as a matter of right?
No. A writ of certiorari is not a demandable as a matter of right, Hence, he who seeks a
writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the law and the Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the
determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. To dispense
with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a
concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so. ( Santos v. Cruz, G.R. Nos. 17009697, March 3, 2006)
24. Distinguish certiorari from appeal by certiorari
The case of Madrigal Transport Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corp., G.R. No. 156067
provides for the difference between Appeal and Certiorari:
As to the Purpose:
Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not
errors of judgment.
As to the Manner of Filing:
In Appeal, the CA exercises its appellate jurisdiction and power of review. While
a certiorari where the higher court uses its original jurisdiction in accordance with
its power of control and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts.
As to the Subject Matter:
Only judgments or final orders and those that the Rules of Court so declare are
appealable. Since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be
directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from
the judgment; or where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate
remedy.
As to the Period of Filing:
Ordinary appeals should be filed within fifteen days from the notice of judgment or
final order appealed from. In an appeal by certiorari, the petition should be filed
also within fifteen days from the notice of judgment or final order, or of the denial
of the petitioner's motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration:
A motion for reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a petition for
certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct the alleged errors.
Note also that this motion is a plain and adequate remedy expressly available
under the law. Such motion is not required before appealing a judgment or final
order.
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
25. Distinguish Certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
As to purpose:
Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of an act performed by the respondent;
prohibition is intended to prevent the commission or carrying out of an act; while
mandamus is intended to compel the performance of the act desired.
As to act to be controlled:
Certiorari extends only to discretionary acts; prohibition, to discretionary and ministerial
acts; and mandamus, to ministerial acts.
As to the need of respondent:
Certiorari lies only against a respondent exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions,
while both prohibition and mandamus are available against respondents who exercise
judicial and/or nonjudicial functions.
26. Why is there a need, as a rule, to file a motion for reconsideration before a special
civil action for certiorari may be filed?
It has been settled in the case of Lim v. Vianzon that “[t]here is no objection to a
judge correcting or altogether altering his case disposition on a motion for reconsideration,
it being the purpose of such recourse to provide the court an opportunity to cleanse itself
of an error unwittingly committed, or, with like effect, to allow the aggrieved party the
chance to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous. A motion for reconsideration
before resort to certiorari is required precisely to afford the public respondent an
opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination
of the legal and factual aspects of the case.
27. What are the exceptions to filing of motion for reconsideration before filing
petition for certiorari?
Pursuant to the case of Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., the
exceptions are:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo had no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon
in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further
delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the
subject matter of the action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) where the proceedings were ex parte, or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to
object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
28. What are the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies
before filing petition for certiorari?
In the case of Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Seludo, Jr., the Supreme Court
laid down the following exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies
before filing petition for certiorari, to wit:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice
the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and
oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by
the courts of justice;
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered
moot;
(j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(k) where strong public interest is involved; and
(l) in quo warranto proceedings.
29. What shall the court do if the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance?
Sec. 6, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that “If the petition is sufficient in
form and substance to justify such process, the court shall issue an order requiring the
respondent or respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of
a copy thereof. Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the
court may direct together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.
30. What may the court, where a petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus is
filed, doto preserve the rights of the parties?
Sec. 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of court provides that “the court in which the petition
is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the
parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the
principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has
been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case.”
31. What are the reliefs petitioner is entitled to in certiorari?
Under Sec. 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, “a person aggrieved thereby may file
a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or
officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.”
32. When and where is the petition for certiorari filed?
Section 4 Rule 65 provides that “the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60)
days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration
or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period
shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. The petition shall be filed in the
Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of
Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions
of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition
shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.”
33. Is there an exception to the rule that the petition should be filed within 60 days?
Yes, the exception to the rule was laid down in the case of Republic v. St. Vincent
de Paul Colleges, Inc.:
“However, there are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1)
most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of
the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the
default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the
case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by
the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and
equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice
and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion
by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances.
34. If the RTC issues a writ of certiorari against municipal trial court or of a
corporation, a board, an officer or a person, can it be enforced anywhere?
No. According to par. 1, Section 21 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any
part of their respective region.
35. Who shall be joined in the petition if it relates to the acts of a judge or
commission?
According to Section 5, Rule 65, “when the petition filed relates to the acts or
omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public
respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear
and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or
respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in
favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the
judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
36. Is the judge or commissioner supposed to comment?
As provided in par. 2 of Sec. 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, “unless otherwise
specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, the public respondents
shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If
the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public respondents shall be
included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by
the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein.
37. What are the grounds for the dismissal of the petition?
Under Section 8 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, “the court, however, may dismiss
the petition if it finds the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay,
or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.”
38. What are the effects of filing of an unmeritorious petition?
The effects are provided under par. 2, Section 8 of Rule 65 which provides that
“the court, however, may dismiss the petition if it finds the same to be patently without
merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration.”
39. May a motion for extension of time be filed under rule 65?
Yes. In the case of Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc. the Supreme
Court held:
“The rationale for the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is essentially to
prevent the use (or abuse) of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to delay a case or
even defeat the ends of justice. Deleting the paragraph allowing extensions to file petition
on compelling grounds did away with the filing of such motions. As the Rule now stands,
petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from
the order denying a motion for reconsideration.
40. What is mandamus?
Mandamus is defined as a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, or
person to do the act required to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when
refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its chief use and not a discretionary duty. It is
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
nonetheless likewise available to compel action, when refused, in matters involving
judgment and discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a
particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of
either.
41. What is the function of prohibition?
According to the case of Vergara v. Rugue, the Supreme Court ruled that “[t]he
function of prohibition is to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority
and to provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice. It is directed against
proceedings that are done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion, there being no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.”
42. What are the requisites for a petition for mandamus?
The Supreme Court held in the case of Lihaylihay v. The Treasurer of the
Philippines that the jurisprudential requisites for a petition for mandamus, to wit:
“A writ of mandamus may issue in either of two (2) situations: first, "when any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station", second, "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or ottice to which such other
is entitled." The first situation demands a concurrence between a clear legal right
accruing to petitioner and a correlative duty incumbent upon respondents to perform
an act, this duty being imposed upon them by law.”
43. What are the requisites for a petition for prohibition?
Pursuant to the case of Ongsuco v. Malones, the Supreme Court ruled that the
requisites for a petition for prohibition are:
(1) the impugned act must be that of a "tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or
person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions"; and
(2) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
44. Does prohibition lie against legislative functions?
No. Prohibition does not lie against legislative functions. As held in Ruperto v.
Torres, prohibition lies against judicial and ministerial functions, but not to legislative
functions.
45. Is exhaustion of administrative remedies required for a petition for mandamus to
prosper?
It is settled that one of the requisites for a writ of prohibition to issue is that there
is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In order that
prohibition will lie, the petitioner must first exhaust all administrative remedies. Thus,
SECOLLES, RIO ANNE A.
JD 3-3 SCA and ProvRem
respondent's failure to file a complaint before the NEA prevents him from filing a petition
for prohibition before the RTC.
46. Can mandamus prosper against a discretionary act? Is there an exception?
The Supreme Court held in People v. Orais:
“While as already shown the discretion of the court will not ordinarily be controlled
by mandamus, it is not universally true that the writ will not issue to control such discretion
or to require a judicial tribunal to act in a particular way. Where the discretion of a court
can be legally exercised in only one way, mandamus will lie to compel the court so to
exercise it; and in some cases mandamus has been employed to correct the errors of
inferior tribunals and to prevent a failure of justice or irreparable injury where there is a
clear right, and there is an absence of any other adequate remedy, as for instance where
no appeal lies, or where the remedy by appeal is inadequate. It may also be employed to
prevent an abuse of discretion or to correct an arbitrary action which does not amount to
the exercise of discretion.”
47. Can mandamus be availed of in enforcing private contracts?
No. The Court ruled in Del Rosario v. Romualdez:
“It was not intended to aid a plaintiff in the enforcement of a mere contract right, or
to take the place of the other remedies provided by law for the adjudication of disputed
claims. Looking at the case from the standpoint of appellant, it involves nothing more than
an ordinary breach of contract. If, as contended, the appellant had a valid contract with
the school board, it also had an adequate remedy at law to recover damages for its breach;
and to permit the writ of mandamus to be used for the purpose of enforcing a mere contract
right would be a wide departure from the settled practice in respect to the character of
cases in which relief by mandamus may be obtained.”