E. Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (Rule 65)

D. Quo Warranto (Rule 66)

> RULE 66 QUO WARRANTO Section 1. Action by Government against individuals. – An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:

(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;

(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or

(c) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act. (1a) Section 2. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must commence action. – The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any case specified in the preceding section can be established by proof, must commence such action. (3a) Section 3. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may commence action with permission of court. – The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor may, with the permission of the court in which the action is to be commenced, bring such an action at the request and upon the relation of another person; but in such case the officer bringing it may first require an indemnity for the expenses and costs of the action in an amount approved by and to be deposited in the court by the person at whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought. (4a) Section 4. When hearing had on application for permission to commence action. – Upon application for permission to commence such action in accordance with the next preceding section, the court shall direct that notice be given to the respondent so that he may be heard in opposition thereto; and if permission is granted, the court shall issue an order to that effect, copies of which shall be served on all interested parties, and the petition shall then be filed within the period ordered by the court. (5a) Section 5. When an individual may commence such an action. – A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name. (6) Section 6. Parties and contents of petition against usurpation. – When the action is against a person for usurping a public office, position or franchise, the petition shall set forth the name of the person who claims to be entitled thereto, if any, with an averment of his right to the same and that the respondent is unlawfully in possession thereof. All persons who claim to be entitled to the public office, position or franchise may be made parties, and their respective rights to such public office, position or franchise determined, in the same action. (7a) Section 7. Venue. – An action under the preceding six sections can be brought only in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where the respondent or any of the respondents resides, but when the Solicitor General commences the action, it may be brought in a Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila, in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme Court. (8a) Section 8. Period for pleadings and proceedings may be reduced; action given precedence. – The court may reduce the period provided by these Rules for filing pleadings and for all other proceedings in the action in order to secure the most expeditious determination of the matters involved therein consistent with the rights of the parties. Such action may be given precedence over any other civil matter pending in the court. (9a) Section 9. Judgment where usurpation found. – When the respondent is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position or franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such respondent be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner or relator, as the case may be, recover his costs. Such further judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires. (10a) Section 10. Rights of persons adjudged entitled to public office; delivery of books and papers; damages. – If judgment be rendered in favor of the person averred in the complaint to be entitled to the public office he may, after taking the oath of office and executing any official bond required by law, take upon himself the execution of the office, and may immediately thereafter demand of the respondent all the books and papers in the respondent’s custody or control appertaining to the office to which the judgment relates. If the respondent refuses or neglects to deliver any book or paper pursuant to such demand, he may be punished for contempt as having disobeyed a lawful order of the court. The person adjudged entitled to the office may also bring action against the respondent to recover the damages sustained by such person by reason of the usurpation. (15a) Section 11. Limitations. – Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose; nor to authorize an action for damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner’s right to the office in question. (16a) Section 12. Judgment for costs. – In an action brought in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, the court may render judgment for costs against either the petitioner, the relator, or the respondent, or the person or persons claiming to be a corporation, or may apportion the costs, as justice requires. (17a)

C. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Rule 65)

> RULE 65 CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS Section 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his 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 person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, 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. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (1a) Section 2. Petition for prohibition. – When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, 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. The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (2a) Section 3. Petition for mandamus. – 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 unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, 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 and 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 to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (3a) Section 4. When and where to file the petition. – 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 petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 12, 2007.) Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases. – 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 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. 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. (5a) Section 6. Order to comment. – 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. In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course thereto, the court may require the respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the petition. Thereafter, the court may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper. (6a) Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. – 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, enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding in the case. (7a) The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 12, 2007.) Section 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. – After the comment or other pleadings required by the court are filed, or the time for the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear the case or require the parties to submit memoranda. If, after such hearing or filing of memoranda or upon the expiration of the period for filing, the court finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render judgment for such relief to which the petitioner is entitled. However, the court may dismiss the petition if it finds the same patently without merit or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. In such event, 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 Rules 139 and 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Court may impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 12, 2007.) Section 9. 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 court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person concerned in such manner as the court may direct, and 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. (9a)

Updated: Challenge the criminal aspect of an Ombudsman ruling through a Rule 65 petition filed directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals (Piccio v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 232712, 28 April 2026).

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus - Defined and Distinguished:

Liberal Construction: When a Rule 45 Petition is Considered a Rule 65 Petition, and Vice-Versa

The Court has treated a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 particularly

• If the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari;
• When errors of judgment are averred;
• When there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules as when there is a significant issue of jurisdiction; and
• When all requisites are present (RIANO (2016), pp. 230-231; City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo, G.R. No. 175723, 2014)

REQUISITES

RUNDOWN OF REQUISITES FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS

Requisites for Certiorari

• Tribunal, board, or officer exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
• Tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and
• There is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Rosales v. ERC, G.R. No. 201852, 2016)

REQUISITES

COMMON REQUISITES FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS

Aggrieved Party

The term "person aggrieved" is not to be construed to mean that any person who feels injured by the lower court's order or decision can question the said court's disposition via certiorari.

In a situation wherein the order or decision being questioned underwent adversarial proceedings before a trial court, the "person aggrieved" referred to under Section 1 of Rule 65 who can avail of the special civil action of certiorari pertains to one who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court. (Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices v. No. Chionlo-Sia, G.R. No. 181186, 2016).

Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Functions

General Rule: Respondent tribunal, board, or officer is performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions

The exercise of judicial function consists of the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.

The term quasi-judicial function applies to the action and discretion of public administrative officers or bodies that 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. (Ongsuco v. Hon. Malones, G.R. No. 182065, 2009)

Issuance by BSP-Monetary Board of CB Circulars is done in the exercise of an executive function and thus may not be the subject of certiorari petition. (Advocates for Truth in Lending v. BSP Monetary Board, G.R. No. 192986, 2013)

The Secretary of Finance in issuing Revenue Regulations based on SEC. 244 of the NRIC is in the exercise of quasi-legislative functions, hence outside the scope of certiorari. (Clark Investors Association v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 200670, 2015)

Exception: However, with respect to the SC, certiorari and prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction by a person or body even if not exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions where the matter is of “transcendental importance to the nation.” (Villanueva v. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, 2015)

No Appeal, Plain, Speedy and Adequate Remedy

It is the inadequacy, and not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the failure of justice without the writ, that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari or prohibition. A remedy is plain, speedy, and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment, order, or resolution of the lower court of agency. (Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, 2015).

Certiorari is a remedy of last resort. It is not available if the party still has another speedy and adequate remedy (such as appeal) available. (Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 218536, 2016).

An adequate remedy has been defined as 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. (PSALM v. Maunlad Homes, Gr No. 215933, 8 Februrary 2017).

REQUISITES

WHEN PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS IS PROPER

Preliminary Considerations

The hierarchy of courts should serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for Rule 65 petitions. The concurrence of jurisdiction among the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction does not give the petitioners the unrestricted freedom of choice of forum. (Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo, G.R. No. 200903, 2014)

In order to properly proceed against the respondent, an aggrieved party [under Rule 65] must choose the proper remedy. The choice depends on which function – quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative, and administrative – the respondent has discharged in doing the assailed action. (Capalla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201112, 2012, Bersamin, J., concurring)

Interruption of Period

An action for quo warranto must be filed within one year after the cause of action accrues. The pendency of administrative remedies does not operate to suspend the running of the one-year period. (Palma-Fernandez v. De La Paz, G.R. No. 78946, 1988)

Under the first provision, the action for quo warranto must be commenced within one year from the time the cause of such ouster, or the right of the plaintiff to hold office arose. On the other hand, Article 1155 of the New Civil Code provides that "the prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court." (Mendiola v. Tancinco, G.R. No. L-14107, 1960)

Certiorari, Prohibition, or Mandamus as an Independent Action

An application for certiorari is an independent action which is not part or a continuation of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of. Impliedly, a petition for certiorari pending before a higher court does not necessarily become moot and academic by a continuation of the proceedings in the court of origin. (Sps. Juan Diaz v. Jose Diaz, G.R. No. 135885, 2000).

CERTIORARI

A petition for certiorari is proper when all the requisites are complied with.

Certiorari Not Available When Appeal is Available

General Rule: Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion. (Freedom from Debt Coalition v. MWSS, G.R. No. 173004, 2007)

When the remedy by appeal had already been lost due to the petitioner’s own neglect or error in the choice of remedies, certiorari cannot lie. The two remedies are mutually exclusive. (MERALCO v. CA, G.R. No. 88396, 1990).

A Motion for Reconsideration is Required Before Filing a Petition for Certiorari

General Rule: A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.

Exceptions:

• Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
• 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;
• 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;
• Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
• Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
• 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;
• Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
• Where the proceeding were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; or
• Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (Republic of the Philippines v. Abdulwahab A. Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, 2013)

Certiorari is Not a Proper Remedy to Appeal a Motion to Quash

General Rule: The proper action is to continue with the trial and reiterate the special defenses invoked in the motion to quash.

Exception: Certiorari is proper when there is grave abuse of discretion. (Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180122, 2009)

Certiorari is the Proper Remedy to Appeal a Declaration of Presumptive Death

The Family Code was explicit that the court’s judgment in summary proceedings, such as the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse, shall be immediately final and executory. An aggrieved party may, nevertheless, file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question any abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that transpired. (Republic v. Cantor, G.R. No. 184621, 2013)

RTC ruled in favor of private respondents. Upon the special civil action of certiorari, the CA dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed another special civil action of certiorari assailing the CA’s resolution. Petitioner should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. However, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, this Court has, before, treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly:

• If the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari;
• When errors of judgment are averred; and
• When there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. (The City of Manila v. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo, G.R. No. 175723, 2014)

Which remedy may an aggrieved party avail of against resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases?

The law is silent. Hence, appeal is not available as a remedy because the right to appeal is a statutory privilege and may be availed of only if there is a statute to that effect. However, an aggrieved party is not without remedy, as he can resort to the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.

Absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, the SC will not interfere and overturn the Ombudsman’s findings of probable cause in investigating criminal complaints. The executive determination of probable cause is a highly factual matter and as the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate, it is in a better position to assess the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on hand to make a finding of probable cause. Since the SC is not a trier of facts, it shall defer to the sound judgment of the Ombudsman. (Arroyo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 210488, 2020)

Certiorari and Not Mandamus May be Issued Against the JBC

Although the JBC does not fall within the scope of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions, in the process of selecting and screening applicants, the JBC neither acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor assumed unto itself any performance of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. However, since the formulation of guidelines and criteria, including the policy that the petitioner now assails, is necessary and incidental to the exercise of the JBC’s constitutional mandate, a determination must be made on whether the JBC has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing the said policy. (Villanueva v. Judicial & Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, 2015)

The writ of mandamus does not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion or to compel a course of conduct, which, it quickly seems to us, was what the petitioner would have the JBC do in his favor. The function of the JBC to select and recommend nominees for vacant judicial positions is discretionary, not ministerial. (Id.).

Accomplished Facts / Fait Accompli

General rule: A petition for prohibition is intended to prohibit or prevent FUTURE acts done without authority or jurisdiction, and is not proper for acts already accomplished.

Exceptions:

Even when an act is already fait accompli, SC has allowed a writ of prohibition:

• Where it would prevent the creation of a new province by those in the corridors of power who could avoid judicial intervention and review by merely speedily and stealthily completing the commission of such illegality. (Tan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 73155, 1986);
• Where it would provide a complete relief by not only preventing what remains to be done but by undoing what has been done, such as terminating a preliminary investigation instead of filing a motion to quash. (Aurillo v. Rabi, G.R. No. 120014, 2002);
• Where the acts sought to be enjoined were performed after the injunction suit is brought. (Versoza v. Martinez, G.R. No. 119511, 1998)

WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

GR: Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are NOT available

XPN:

• To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
• When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
• When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice
• When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
• Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
• When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
• Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
• Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
• Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance
• When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and the motion to quash on that ground has been denied. (Samson v. Guingona, Jr. G.R. No. 123504, 2000)

Note: A preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners (Lopez v. de la Cruz, G.R. No. L6229, 1954)

Note: As a general rule, mandamus cannot be used to compel the exercise of discretion of the prosecutor. The courts can issue a writ of mandamus only to compel the prosecutor to decide on the complaint but it cannot direct the prosecutor what to decide. The prosecutor still has the discretion on what to do, either to file information with the court or dismiss the complaint.

However, the moment he finds one to be so liable it becomes his inescapable duty to charge him therewith and to prosecute him for the same. In such a situation, the rule loses its discretionary character and becomes mandatory. Thus, where despite the sufficiency of the evidence before the prosecutor, he refuses to file the corresponding information against the person responsible, he abuses his discretion. His act is tantamount to a deliberate refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. (MBTC v Reynaldo, G.R. No. 164538, 2010)

Respondent in Mandamus

An inferior court, tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or other person neglecting the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty or unlawfully excluding another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the petitioner is entitled. (Sec. 3, Rule 65).

Nature and Purpose of Mandamus

The writ of mandamus lies to enforce the execution of an act, when, otherwise, justice would be obstructed; and, regularly, issues only in cases relating to the public and to the government; hence, it is called a prerogative writ. To preserve its prerogative character, mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in matters relating to the public. (Uy Kiao Eng. v. Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831, 2010).

Mandamus Proper When There is the Existence of a Clear Legal Right

A clear legal right is a right which is indubitably granted by law or inferable as a matter of law. If the right is clear and the case is meritorious, objections raising merely technical questions will be disregarded. But where the right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute, mandamus cannot issue. (Angeles v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 142549, 2010)

Appeals from the resolution of the Secretary of Justice

As a rule, the action of the Secretary of Justice is not subject to the review of courts unless there is a showing that he committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the challenged resolution. (Salapudin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 184681, Feb. 25, 2013)

A petition for review under Rule 43 is not allowed. Instead, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is allowed on the ground that that the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion. (Alcaraz v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 164715, Sep. 20, 2006)

Mandamus May Not be Used to Compel Discretionary Duties; Exception

General Rule: Mandamus is applicable to a ministerial duty.

Exception: As for discretionary duties, it can be used to the extent of requiring performance of a discretionary duty to act but not to require performance of such duty in a particular manner. (BF Homes v. NWRC, G.R. No. 78529, 1987)

Exceptions to the Exception: The respondent can be ordered to act in a particular manner to control discretion when there is:

• Grave abuse of discretion;
• Manifest injustice; or
• Palpable excess of authority. (M.A. Jimenez Enterprises v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 155307, 2011)

DISTINGUISH: CERTIORARI, APPEAL BY CERTIORARI, AND ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 1 OF HE CONSTITUTION

See above discussion on Certiorari vs. Appeal by Certiorari.

Certiorari and Prohibition are Appropriate Remedies to Contest the Validity of Acts of Any Branch or Agency of Government, Under Article VIII Section 1 of The Constitution

Judicial power includes duty of the courts to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Ermita v. Aldecoa-Delorino, G.R. No. 177130; 2011; Francisco v. Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 166910, 2010)

MANDAMUS

DISTINGUISH: PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS, AND INJUNCTION

Injunction Distinguished from Prohibition and Mandamus

EXCEPTIONS TO FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE FILING PETITION

General Rule: A motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non requirement before filing a petition under Rule 65. (Romy’s Freight Service v. Castro, G.R. No. 141637; Nuque v. Aquino, G.R. No. 193058, 2015)

Exceptions:

• Where the order questioned is a patent nullity;
• Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have already been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
• Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question;
• Where an MR would be useless or is prohibited;
• Where petitioner is deprived of due process;
• 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;
• Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved;
• Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
• Where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
• Where the subject matter of the action is perishable.

RELIEFS PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO

The primary reliefs available to petitioner are:

• Petition of certiorari – That the judgment, order, or resolution subject of the petition for certiorari be annulled or modified. (Sec. 1, Rule 65);
• Petition for prohibition – That the respondent be ordered to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified in the petition for prohibition. (Sec. 2, Rule 65); or
• Petition for mandamus – That the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, do the act required to be done to protect the petitioner’s rights, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the respondent’s wrongful acts (Sec. 3, Rule 65)
• Common to certiorari, prohibition and mandamus – The court may grant such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. It may also award damages. (Sec. 9, Rule 65).

This may include provisional remedies, final injunctions, mandatory injunctions to return the parties to the status quo, etc.

ACTIONS OR OMISSIONS OF FIRSTLEVEL/REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS IN ELECTION CASES

In election cases involving an act or omission of the MTC or RTC, the petition for certiorari shall be filed exclusively with the COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (Sec. 4, Rule 65)

Relief for Improvident Declaration of Default

File a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (Aerospace University v. CHED, G.R. No.139371, 2001)

When Prohibition is Not Applicable

• When the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a TRO is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise; and
• Upon the filing of a bond by the applicant, the amount which is to be fixed by the court and shall accrue in favor of the government if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. (R.A. No. 8975, Sec. 3)