4. Writ of Continuing Mandamus

WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof:

• Unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or
• Unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law:

The person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court:

• Alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and
• Praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and
• To pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations.

The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. (R8, S1)

A Petition For Mandamus Was Considered Proper In The Following Instances:

• To compel the Ombudsman to dismiss a case which was pending before him for 6 years, which was considered a violation of the constitutional duty to “promptly act on complaints file. (Angchangco v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 122728, 1997);
• To compel a judge to issue a writ of execution pending appeal of a decision in an ejectment case, where the defendant appellant failed to make the necessary deposits of rentals pending appeal. (Vda. De Carbungco v. Amparo, G.R. No. L-2245, 1949)

Mandamus Not Proper in the Following Cases:

• To enforce purely contractual obligations;
• When there is another speedy and adequate remedy;
• To compel a school to readmit students, and/or to confer academic honors, in violation of the school’s academic freedom. (University of San Agustin v. CA, G.R. No. 100588; University of San Carlos v. CA, G.R. No. 79237 1988);
• To compel the performance of an act already done, such as to include one’s name in the list of graduates and allow him to take part in the graduation exercises, as the same was moot since the graduation ceremony had already pushed through. (Cudia v. The Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362, 2015)