REVIEWER: Rule 65 Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
RULE
65
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
1. Certiorari under Rule 65
• Directed against whom – any tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. (Sec 1, Rule 65)
• Under what circumstance to be initiated –
1. When
any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
2. there
is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law. (Sec 1, Rule 65)
• Who may initiate – a person aggrieved thereby.
(Sec 1, Rule 65)
• How initiated – by a verified petition in the
proper court. (Sec 1, Rule 65)
• What to allege in the petition - alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that 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. (Sec 1, Rule 65)
• What to accompany the petition - The petition
shall be accompanied by
1. a
certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof,
2. copies
of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and
3. a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
section 3, Rule 46. (Sec 1, Rule 65)
1.1 Writ of Certiorari
• Angeles v. Gutierrez – At the outset, we
emphasize that a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary prerogative writ that
is never demandable as a matter of right.
• Roquero v. The counselor of UP-Manila – The
abuse must have been committed in a manner so patent and so gross as to amount
to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
1.2 The instances in which certiorari will
issue cannot be defined.
1. Whenever
necessary to prevent a substantial wrong
2. Or
to do substantial justice
1.3 Requirements of petition for certiorari
under Rule 65
• Tan v. Spouses Antazo – petition of certiorari
under Rule 65 of ROC is a pleading limited to correction of errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged in
and established by the petition:
a) That
the writ is directed against any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions;
b) That
such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; and
c) That
there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
1.4 Motion for Reconsideration is a condition
sine qua non; exceptions
• Republic of the Philippines v. Bayao – held
that a MR is a condition sine qua non for filing of a petition for certiorari
subject to certain conditions:
a) Where the order is a patent nullity, as
where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; b) Where the questions raised in the
certiorari proceedings 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 MR would be useless;
e) Where
the petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief;
f) Where,
in 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 of 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.
1.5 Certiorari inherently requires the filing
of a Motion for Reconsideration
• Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Philtranco
Workers Union-Association of Genuine Labor Organization – It has long been settled that
the remedy of an aggrieved party in a decision or resolution of the Secretary
of Labor is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for
any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
1.6 Remedy for dismissal by the Court of
Appeals of a Petition via Rule 65
• Republic v. Abdulwahab Bayao - A dismissal by
the Court of Appeals of a Petition via Rule 65 for failure to file a Motion for
Reconsideration may be assailed via Rule 45.
1.7 Original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari
a) The Supreme Court –
has exclusive original jurisdiction over petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus against judgment, final order and resolutions of the following:
a. CA
b. Sandiganbayan
c. CTA
d. COMELEC
e. Ombudsman
in criminal cases
b) The Court of Appeals – Sec 9, BP 129
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs
or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
a. Decisions,
final order and resolution of RTC
b. Decisions,
final order and resolution of NLRC
c. Decisions,
final order of Sec of Labor and employment in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction over decision, final order of the following offices:
i. POEA
ii. Sec
of Labor in case of violation of
apprenticeship agreement
iii. NWPC
on appeal over
Wage Order by RTWPB iv. Direct and
indirect contempt of NLRC
v. Sec of Labor in case of denial of union registration by
RD or
BLR vi. BLR on appeal over
cancellation of union registration
vii. Sec of Labor on appeal over
order of BLR in
intra-labor dispute
c) The Regional Trial
Court – Sec 21, BP 129; exercise original jurisdiction
(1) 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
regions;
d) Sandiganbayan - The
Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto,
arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive
Order Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction
over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.
1.8 COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction for
certiorari an election cases
• Bulilis v. Nuez - SC recognizes the COMELECs
appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against all acts or
omissions of courts in election cases.
• Galang v. Geronimo – SC ruled that petition
for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of the regional trial court
in an electoral protest case be considered in aid of the appellate jurisdiction
of the COMELEC.
1.9 Concurrent jurisdiction on certiorari and
doctrine of hierarchy of courts
• AL Ang Network v. Mondejar – To be sure, the
Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari.
• St. Martin Funeral Homes
v. NLRC
–
Consequently, all petitions for certiorari
of decisions of NLRC should hence forth be initially filed in the Court of
Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
appropriate forum for the relief desired.
1.10 Policy on Hierarchy of courts
• Dacudao v. SOJ – We emphasize that the
concurrence of jurisdiction among the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the
Regional Trial Courts to issue the writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction did not give petitioners the
unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
• The
Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of courts, and now
affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious consequences. Bañez, Jr. v. Concepcion
• In
People v. Cuaresma, the Court has also
amplified the need for strict adherence to the policy of hierarchy of courts.
This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to
parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of
the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a
hierarchy of courts.
1.11 Meaning of grave abuse of discretion
• Abedes v. CA - In a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner is burdened to establish
that the respondent tribunal acted without jurisdiction, meaning, that it does
not have the legal power to determine the case; or that it acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, meaning, that having been clothed with power to
determine the case, it oversteps its authority as determined by law, or that it
committed grave abuse of its discretion or acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise
of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
• Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio - The term GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION has a
specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with
grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
• The
abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to
act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
1.12 “Without jurisdiction” or excess of
jurisdiction means
• Alafriz v. Nable - "Without
jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute want of
jurisdiction.
• LBP v. CA, GR 129368 - There is "excess
of jurisdiction" where the court has jurisdiction but has transcended the
same or acted without any statutory authority.
1.13 Meaning of Judicial Function
• 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.
1.14 Meaning of quasi-judicial function
• QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION is a term which
applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or
bodies, who are 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.
1.15 Meaning of adequate remedy
• Conti v. CA – It is a remedy which (would)
equally (be) beneficial, speedy and sufficient not merely a remedy which at
some time in the future will bring about a revival of the judgment . . .
complained of in the certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which will promptly
relieve the petitioner from the petitioner from the injurious effects of that
judgment and the acts of the inferior court or tribunal.
• Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank - A remedy is
considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve
the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the
lower court or agency.
1.16 Certiorari not the proper remedy if appeal
is available
• LBP v. CA, GR 129368 - The general rule is
that a cert writ will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the
aggrieved party. The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that
of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually
exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.
• Banco Filipino v. CA - The special civil
action of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal which
petitioner has lost.
1.17 Appeal and Certiorari Distinguished
• As to Purpose. The special civil action
for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction and not errors of judgment (for appeal). Where the error is not
one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact – a mistake of judgment –
appeal is remedy.
• As to Manner of Filing. In appeal by
certiorari, the appellate court is in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction and power of review, while in certiorari as an original action,
the higher court exercises original jurisdiction under its power of control and
supervision over the proceedings of lower courts.
• As to Subject Matter. Certiorari, as a
mode of appeal, involves the review of the judgment, award or final order on
the merits. The original action for certiorari may be directed against an
interlocutory order of the court prior to appeal from the judgment or where
there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
• As to the Period of Filing. Ordinary
appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or
final order appealed from. Petition for certiorari 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.
• As to
the Need for a Motion
for
Reconsideration.
A MR 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. Such
MR is not required before appealing a judgment or final order.
1.18 A petition for certiorari before the RTC is
an original action
• China Bank v. Cebu Printing and Packaging - a
petition for certiorari is an original and independent action that was not part
of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order
complained of.
1.19 Remedy in a petition for certiorari decided
by RTC
• Yalong v. People – SC explained that a
petition for certiorari before the RTC is an original action and the mode of
appeal is by filing a notice of appeal under Rule 41, Sec 2a.
Hence, based on the above-cited rule,
Yalong should have filed a notice of appeal with the RTC instead of a petition
for review with the CA. As a consequence of Yalong’s failure to file a notice
of appeal with the RTC within the proper reglementary period, the RTC Decision
had attained finality which thereby bars Yalong from further contesting the
same.
1.20 Judgment or final order which can be the
subject of a petition for certiorari
• Those
judgment or final order which are not appealable can be the subject of SCA for
under Rule 65.
• No
appeal may be taken from:
a) An
order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration
b) An
order denying a petition for relief or any
similar motion seeking relief from judgment
c) An
interlocutory order
d) An
order disallowing or dismissing an appeal
e) An
order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground
vitiating consent
f) An
order of execution
g) A
judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in
separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while
the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom
h) An
order dismissing an action without prejudice
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order
is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil
action under Rule 65.
1.21 Cases when certiorari is not proper
• Chua v. Santos – It is elementary that the
special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal,
where the latter remedy is available, as it was in this case. Although there
are exceptions to these rules, among them are: (a) when public welfare and the
advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice
so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; (d) or when the
questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority, none
is present in the case at bar.
• ARBA v. Nicolas - Errors in the appreciation
of evidence may only be reviewed by appeal and not by certiorari because they
do not involve any jurisdictional ground. Likewise, errors of law do not
involve jurisdiction and may only be corrected by ordinary appeal.
• Galicto v. Aquino - Under the Rules of Court,
petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition are availed of to question judicial,
quasi-judicial and mandatory acts. Since the issuance of an EO is not judicial,
quasi-judicial or a mandatory act, a petition for certiorari and prohibition is
an incorrect remedy; instead a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of
the Rules of Court, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), is the proper
recourse to assail the validity of EO 7.
• Under Sec 22 of Rule on VAWC- Prohibited
pleadings and motions includes petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition
against interlocutory order issued by the court.
1.22 Appeal and certiorari are mutually
exclusive and not alternative
• Sandoval v. Cailipan - It is well-settled that
the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative
or successive.
The simultaneous filing of a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be allowed since one remedy would
necessarily cancel out the other. The existence and availability of the right
of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for
availment of the latter is precisely that there should be no appeal.
1.23 Distinction between a final judgment or
order and an interlocutory order
• Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Spouses Lopez
– o A FINAL JUDGMENT OR ORDER is one that finally disposes of a case,
leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto. o
Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not
end the Courts task of adjudicating the parties contentions and determining
their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates
that other things remain to be done by the Court, is INTERLOCUTORY.
1.24 Remedy to assail an interlocutory order
• Salcedo–Ortanez v. CA – The extraordinary writ
of certiorari is generally not available to challenge an interlocutory order of
a trial court. The proper remedy in such
cases is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in said
appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order.
• Calderon v. Roxas – The remedy against an
interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate special civil
action under Rule 65 provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Having chosen
the wrong remedy in questioning the subject interlocutory orders of the RTC,
petitioner's appeal was correctly dismissed by the CA.
• Joel Galzote y Soriaga v. Jonathan Briones -
The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not
appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section
1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a
petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or
any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy.
Thus, a direct resort to a special civil
action for certiorari is an exception rather than the general rule, and is a
recourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling reasons.
• Rayos v. The City of Manila - An order denying
a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable. An order denying a
motion to dismiss does not finally dispose of the case, and in effect, allows
the case to proceed until the final adjudication thereof by the court. As such,
it is merely interlocutory in nature and thus, not appealable.
1.25 Application of the rule on Judicial
Courtesy
• So
construed, in Eternal Gardens Memorial Corp.
v. Court of
Appeals, the rule of judicial
courtesy would apply only if there is a strong probability that the issues
before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the
continuation of the proceedings in the lower court. Sapphire
Securities Phils., Inc v. Khoe – Besides, the principle of judicial
courtesy has already been abandoned for unnecessarily stalling the regular
course of proceedings. Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
directs the lower court or tribunal to proceed with the principal case within
10 days from the filing by a party of a petition for certiorari with the higher
court, absent the issuance of a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction against it.
• De Leon v. Public Estates - It is true that
there are instances where, even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction
or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court, it would be proper for
a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of
judicial courtesy. The principle of judicial courtesy, however, remains to be
the exception rather than the rule.
• Datu Michael Abas Kida et al. V. Senate – The
principle of judicial courtesy is based on the hierarchy of courts and applies
only to lower courts in instances where, even if there is no writ of preliminary
injunction or TRO issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a lower
court to suspend its proceedings for practical and ethical considerations.
1.26 Errors of judgment and errors of
jurisdiction
• First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of CA
–
ü An
error of judgment is one which the
court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
ü 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.
1.27 Certiorari
as the proper remedy despite the
availability of appeal
• Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Spouses Lopez -
the Court has declared that the requirement that there must be no appeal, or
any plain speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law admits of
exceptions, such as: (a) when it is
necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a
party;
(b) where the trial judge
capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a
failure of justice;
(d) where an appeal would be slow,
inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where
the issue raised is one purely of law;
(f) where public interest is involved; and
(g) in case of urgency.
1.28 Distinction between Rule 65 and Rule 64
• Pates v. COMELEC - Procedurally, the most
patent difference between the two i.e., the exception that Section 2, Rule 64
refers to is Section 3 which provides for a special period for
the filing of petitions for certiorari from
decisions or rulings of the COMELEC en banc. The period is 30 days from notice
of the decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that Rule 65 provides), with
the intervening period used for the filing of any motion for reconsideration
deductible from the originally-granted 30 days (instead of the fresh period of
60 days that Rule 65 provides).
1.29 Three material dates that must be stated in
a petition for certiorari
• Lapid v. Laurea - There are three material
dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65.
ü First,
the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was
received;
ü Second,
the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and
ü Third,
the date when notice of the denial thereof was received.
1.30 Rule on substantial compliance with the
requirements of Section 3, Rule 46
• Santos v. Litton Mills Incorporated – SC held
that the mention of the parties respective counsels addresses constitutes
substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules
of Court which provides in part that [t]he petition shall contain the full
names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents.
1.31 Procedural flaw on the petition merits its
outright dismissal
• Vicencio v. Villar - Section 4, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court provides that a pleading required to be verified which contains
a verification based on "information and belief" or "knowledge,
information and belief," shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. A
pleading, therefore, in which the verification is based merely on the party’s
knowledge and belief – as in the instant Petition – produces no legal effect,
subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be remedied.
1.32 Factual determination in certiorari
• Maralit v. PNB - In a special civil action for
certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to make its own factual
determination. The Court of Appeals can grant a petition for certiorari when,
as in the present case, it finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion by disregarding evidence material to the controversy. To make this
finding, the Court of Appeals necessarily has to look at the evidence and make
its own factual determination.
1.33 Special civil action for certiorari in
Alternative
Dispute Resolution
A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC
• Rule 19.26. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
- When the Regional Trial Court, in making a ruling under the Special ADR Rules,
has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
party may file a special civil action for certiorari to annul or set aside a
ruling of the Regional Trial Court.
A special civil action for certiorari
may be filed against the following orders of the court.
a.
Holding that the arbitration agreement is
inexistent, invalid or unenforceable;
b.
Reversing the arbitral tribunal’s preliminary
determination upholding its jurisdiction;
c.
Denying the request to refer the dispute to
arbitration;
d.
Granting or refusing an interim relief;
e.
Denying a petition for the appointment of an
arbitrator;
f.
Confirming, vacating or correcting a domestic
arbitral award;
g.
Suspending the proceedings to set aside an
international commercial arbitral award and referring the case back to the
arbitral tribunal;
h.
Allowing a party to enforce an international
commercial arbitral award pending appeal;
i.
Adjourning or deferring a ruling on whether to
set aside, recognize and or enforce an
international commercial arbitral award;
j.
Allowing a party to enforce a foreign arbitral
award pending appeal; and
k.
Denying a petition for assistance in taking
evidence.
• Rule 19.27. Form.
ü The
petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the questioned
judgment, order or resolution of the Regional Trial Court, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the Rules of Court.
ü The
petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals docketing
fees and other lawful fees of P3,500.00 and deposit the sum of P500.00 for
costs. Rule 19.28. When to file petition. - The
petition must be filed with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be annulled or set aside.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be allowed.
• Rule 19.29. Arbitral tribunal a nominal party in
the petition. - As nominal party, the
arbitral tribunal shall not be required to submit any pleadings or written
submissions to the court. The arbitral tribunal or an arbitrator may, however,
submit such pleadings or written submissions if the same serves the interest of
justice.
• Rule 19.30. Court to dismiss petition. - if it
fails to comply with Rules 19.27 and 19.28 above, or upon consideration of the
ground alleged and the legal briefs submitted by the parties
• Rule 19.31. Order to comment. - If the
petition is sufficient in form and substance to justify such process, the Court
of Appeals shall immediately issue an order requiring the respondent or
respondents to comment on the petition within a non-extendible period of
fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
• Rule 19.32. Arbitration may continue despite petition for certiorari. - Should the arbitral
tribunal continue with the proceedings, the arbitral proceedings and any award
rendered therein will be subject to the final outcome of the pending petition
for certiorari.
• Rule 19.33. Prohibition against injunctions. -
The Court of Appeals shall not, during the pendency of the proceedings before
it, prohibit or enjoin the commencement of arbitration, the constitution of the
arbitral tribunal, or the continuation of arbitration.
• Rule 19.34. Proceedings after comment is filed.
- After the comment is filed, or the time for the filing thereof has expired,
the court shall render judgment granting the relief prayed for or to which the
petitioner is entitled, or denying the same, within a non-extendible period of
fifteen (15) days.
• Rule 19.35. Service and enforcement of order or
judgment. - A certified copy of the
judgment rendered in accordance with the last preceding section shall be served
upon the Regional Trial Court concerned in such manner as the Court of Appeals
may direct, and disobedience thereto shall be punished as contempt.
1.34 Certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise
constitutional issues
• Ermita v. Aldecoa-Delorino – Petitions for
certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional
issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify, when proper, acts of
legislative and executive officials.
2.
Petition
for Prohibition
• Directed against whom - any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions
• Under what circumstances can be initiated –
1. without
or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
2. there
is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law
• Who may initiate – a person aggrieved thereby
• How to initiate – by a verified petition in
the proper court
• What to allege in the petition – by alleging
the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified
therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require.
• What to accompany the petition - The petition
shall likewise be accompanied by
1. a
certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof,
copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and
2. a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
section 3, Rule 46.
2.1 Nature of prohibition as a remedy
• Holy Spirit Homeowners’ Association v. Defensor
- A petition for prohibition is also not the proper remedy to assail an IRR
issued in the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. Prohibition lies
against judicial or ministerial functions, but not against legislative or
quasi-legislative functions.
2.2 Requisites of writs of prohibition
• Rivera v. Espiritu - For writs of prohibition,
the requisites 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."
2.3 Prohibition is an appropriate remedy to
raise constitutional issues
• Francisco Jr. v. Toll Regulatory Board -
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are, as here, appropriate remedies to
raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify, when
proper, acts of legislative and executive officials.
3.
Petition
for Mandamus
• Directed against whom - any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person
• Under what circumstances can be initiated -
When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
1. unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or
2. unlawfully
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, and
3. there
is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
• Who can initiate - person aggrieved thereby
• How to initiate – by filing a verified
petition in the proper court
• What to allege in the petition – by
alleging
1. the
facts with certainty and
2. praying
that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some
other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to
protect the rights of the petitioner, and
3. to
pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of
the respondent.
4. The
petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
3.1 The nature and office of the remedy of
mandamus
• Special People, Inc. v. Canada – The earliest
writs were in the form of letters missive, and were mere personal commands. The
command was a law in itself, from which there was no appeal. The writ of
mandamus was not only declaratory of a duty under an existing law, but was a
law in itself that imposed the duty, the performance of which it commanded.
Early on, the writ of mandamus was
particularly used to compel public authorities to return the petitioners to
public offices from which they had been unlawfully removed.
Mandamus was, therefore, originally a
purely prerogative writ emanating from the King himself, superintending the
police and preserving the peace within the realm.
3.2 Meaning of purely ministerial act or duty
• Special People, Inc. v. Canada – A purely ministerial act or duty is one
that 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 its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act
done. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the
exercise of official discretion or judgment.
3.3 Mandamus, meaning (“we command”)
• Eng v. Lee - Mandamus is a command issuing
from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the
sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some
corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein
specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom
the writ is directed or from operation of law.
3.4 Two situations when a writ of mandamus may
issue
• Abaga v. Panes – there are two situations when
a writ of mandamus may issue:
(1)
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; or
(ministerial duty)
(2)
when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer
or person unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is
entitled. (right that is clear and certain,
one that has been established by law)
3.5 Requisites of mandamus
• Before
mandamus issued, the following requisites
should be satisfied:
1. Petitioner
must show a clear right to the act
demanded; thus, it will never be issued in doubtful cases;
2. Respondent
must have the duty to perform the
act because the same is
mandated by law;
3. Respondent
unlawfully neglects the performance
of the duty enjoined by law; 4. The act to be performed is ministerial;
5. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.
3.6 Discretionary and ministerial act, distinguished
• Roble Arrastre, Inc. v. Villaflor –
ü "Discretion," when applied to
public functionaries, means a power or right conferred upon them by law or
acting officially, under certain circumstances, uncontrolled by the judgment or
conscience of others.
ü A
purely ministerial act or duty in
contradiction to a discretional act 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.
3.7 Instances when mandamus shall prosper to
compel a discretionary act
• Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Cunning,
Inc – While, ordinarily, mandamus will not
prosper to compel a discretionary act, the writ shall issue in instances of
gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or palpable excess of authority,
equivalent to denial of a settled right to which petitioner is entitled; and
when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
3.8 Rights are well-defined, clear and certain
in mandamus
• De Serra v. Salas – A rule long familiar is
that mandamus never issues in doubtful cases. It requires a showing of a
complete and clear legal right in the petitioner to the performance of
ministerial acts. In varying language, the principle echoed and re-echoed is
that legal rights may be enforced by mandamus only if those rights are
well-defined, clear and certain.
3.9 When mandamus not proper
• Special People, Inc. v. Canada - We dismiss
the present recourse because the petitioner failed to exhaust the available
administrative remedies, and because it failed to show that it was legally
entitled to demand the performance of the act by the respondents.
Another reason for denying due course to
this review is that the petitioner did not establish that the grant of its
application for the CNC was a purely ministerial in nature on the part of RD
Lipayon. Hence, mandamus was not a proper remedy.
• Tangonan v. Paño - The writ will not issue to
compel an official to do anything which it is not his duty to do or to which it is his duty not to do, or give to
the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law.
On the part of the party petitioner, it
is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that he should have a clear
legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the
respondent to perform the act required.
• Dacudao
v. SOJ - The main objective of mandamus is to compel the performance of a
ministerial duty on the part of the respondent. Plainly enough, the writ of
mandamus does not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion or to
compel a course of conduct.
3.10 Petition for mandamus must be instituted by
a party aggrieved
• Guingona v. COMELEC - If the petition is
anchored on the people’s right to information on matters of public concern, any
citizen can be the real party in interest. The requirement of personal interest
is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore,
part of the general public which possesses the right.
There is no need to show any special
interest in the result. It is sufficient that petitioners are citizens and, as
such, are interested in the faithful execution of the laws.
3.11 Mandamus distinguished from prohibition
• Ongusco v. Malones –
ü In
a petition for prohibition against
any tribunal, corporation, board, or person -- whether exercising judicial,
quasijudicial, or ministerial functions -- who has acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner prays that
judgment be rendered, commanding the respondent to desist from further
proceeding in the action or matter specified in the petition.
ü On
the other hand, the remedy of mandamus lies
to compel performance of a ministerial duty. The petitioner for such a writ
should have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the performance of
the act, and it must be the clear and imperative duty of respondent to do the
act required to be done.
• Morfe v. The Justice of Peace Caloocan –
ü The
remedy of mandamus has for its
object to compel an inferior tribunal in the proper case, as a justice of the
peace court, to comply with a function which the law specially prescribes as a
duty resulting from its office when there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy
ü That
of prohibition has for its object
that of preventing an inferior tribunal in the proper case, as a justice of the
peace court, from executing or continuing to execute an act in excess of its
jurisdiction, when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law
3.12 Prescriptive period for filing
mandamus
• Madrigal v. Lecaros - The unbending
jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is to the effect that a petition for quo
warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be filed within one (1) year from the date the
petitioner is ousted from his position
3.13 Declaratory Relief treated as mandamus
• Salvacion v. Central Bank – This Court has no
original and exclusive jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief.
However, exceptions to this rule have been recognized. Thus, where the petition
has far-reaching implications and
raises questions that should be resolved, it may be treated as one for
mandamus.
3.14 Exception to exhaustion of administrative
remedies for mandamus to lie
• Valmonte v. Belmonte - The principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to settled exceptions, among
which is when only a question of law
is involved.
4.
When
and where petition filed
When to
file –
1. The
petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution.
2. 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.
Where
to file – The petition shall be filed in the:
1. Supreme
Court or,
2. Regional
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the
Supreme Court, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a
corporation, board, officer or person
3. Court
of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
4. Sandiganbayan
if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
5. Court
of Appeals if it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency,
unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules
Mandamus on act or omission of MTC or RTS in
election cases – petition shall be filed
exclusively with COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
4.1 Interpretation of the phrase “in the aid of
its appellate jurisdiction”
• Galang v. Geronimo – Interpreting the phrase
"in aid of its appellate jurisdiction," the Court held in J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo,
et al. that if a case may be appealed to a particular court or judicial
tribunal or body, then said court or judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction
to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.
Since it is the COMELEC which has
jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the regional
trial court in election contests involving elective municipal officials, then
it is also the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
4.2 Period to file Motion for Extension
absolutely not prohibited
• Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc.
– The general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be filed within sixty
(60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be
assailed. Under exceptional circumstances, however, and subject to the sound
discretion of the Court, said period may be extended.
That no mention is made in the abovequoted amended Section 4
of Rule 65 of a motion for extension, unlike in the previous for formulation,
does not make the filing of such pleading absolutely prohibited.
Absent such prohibition, motions for
extensions are allowed, subject to the Court’s sound discretion. The present
petition may thus be allowed, having been filed within the extension sought
and, at all events, given its merits.
• Exceptional and meritorious cases:
(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.
5.
Respondents
and costs in certain cases
Requirement to join the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings -
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;
1. the
person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court
2. 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
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.
• When public respondent to appear or file answer
- 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.
• Effect if the case is elevated to higher court
– 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.
6.
Order
to comment
• When to file – if the petition is sufficient
in form and substance to justify such process
• Contents of the order – the court shall issue
an order:
1. requiring
the respondent or respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days
from receipt of a copy thereof
2. 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
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals,
1. the
provisions of section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed.
2. Before
giving due course thereto, the court may require the respondents to file their
comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the petition.
3. Thereafter,
the court may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other
pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper.
7.
Expediting
proceedings; injunctive relief
Order
to expedite proceeding and injunctive relief - The court in which the
petition is filed may issue orders:
1. expediting
the proceedings
2. 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.
Effect of filing the petition - 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.
8.
Proceedings
after comment is filed
When to
hear the case or submit memoranda –
1. After
the comment or other pleadings required by the court are filed
2. or
the time for the filing thereof has expired
• When to render judgement - after such hearing
or submission of memoranda or the expiration of the period for the filing
thereof the court finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall
render judgment for the relief prayed for or to which the petitioner is
entitled.
• When to 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.
• Effect of dismissal – The court may award in
favor of the respondent treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and
counsel in addition to subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions under
Rule 139 and Rule 139-B of ROC.
• Effect on erring lawyers – The court may
impose motou proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, ither disciplinary and
unmeritorious petitions for certiorari.
9.
Service
and enforcement of order or judgment
• To whom order or judgment serve - A certified
copy of the judgment rendered in accordance with the last preceding section
shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person concerned in such manner as the court may direct.
• Effect of disobedience to the order or judgment -
disobedience thereto shall be punished as contempt. An execution may issue for
any damages or costs awarded in accordance with section 1 of Rule 39.
10.
Cases
originally filed in CA under Rule 46 This Rule shall apply to original
actions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto under Rule
65
and Rule 47.
• Title of Cases - In all cases originally filed
in the Court of Appeals, the party instituting the action shall be called the
petitioner and the opposing party the respondent. Sec 1, Rule 46
• To
what actions applicable - shall apply to original actions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto. Sec 2,
Rule 46
• Rules governing certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto - for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus by Rule 65, and for quo warranto by Rule 66.
• Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirement – The petition
shall contain the:
1. full
names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents
2. concise
statement of the
matters involved
3. the
factual background of the case
4. the
grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for. Sec
3, Rule 46 In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall
indicate:
Comments
Post a Comment