Professional Documents
Culture Documents
usurpation of
jurisdiction
it is negative (if a
person is ordered
AND MANDAMUS (Sec. 2, Rule to desist from
65) excluding another
Certiorari is an extraordinary and independent remedy
from a right or
-high prerogative writ because cannot avail anytime office) (Sec. 3,
-Certiorari’s nature: limited in scope and narrow in character Rule 65).
Scope Extends to Extends to Only for ministerial
-Prohibition a preventive remedy; appealable discretionary acts discretionary acts
and ministerial
DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS acts
Certiorari Prohibition Mandamus
Definition Certiorari is an Prohibition is an Mandamus is an PETITION FOR CERTIORARI (SEC. 1)
extraordinary writ extraordinary extraordinary writ Against whom filed (Respondents)
annulling or writ commanding a An action for certiorari is addressed to any:
modifying the commanding a tribunal, a. Tribunal
proceedings of a tribunal, corporation, board b. Board or
tribunal, board or corporation, or person, to do an
c. Officer, exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
officer exercising board or act required to be
judicial or quasi- person, done:
judicial functions whether a. When he Aside from the party in interest, it includes a tribunal, the court,
when such exercising unlawfully board or officer, exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
tribunal, board or judicial, quasi- neglects the
officer has acted judicial or performance Rule 43 have an enumeration of the quasi-judicial bodies whose
without or in ministerial of an act which decisions are questionable by way of an appeal under Rule 43 or by
excess of its or his functions, to the law
way of Petition By Certiorari under Rule 65.
jurisdiction, or desist from specifically
with grave abuse further enjoins as a
of discretion proceedings duty, and Among these agencies are the:
amounting to lack when said there is no 1. Civil Service Commission,
or excess of proceedings are other plain, 2. Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
jurisdiction, there without or in speedy and 3. Securities and Exchange Commission,
being no appeal excess of its adequate 4. Office of the President,
or any other jurisdiction, or remedy in the
5. Land Registration Authority,
plain, speedy and with abuse of ordinary
adequate remedy its discretion, course of law; 6. Social Security Commission,
in the ordinary there being no or 7. Civil Aeronautics Board,
course of law appeal or any b. When one 8. Bureau of Patents,
(Sec. 1, Rule 65). other plain, unlawfully 9. Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
speedy and excludes 10. National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory
adequate another from Board,
remedy in the the use and
11. National Telecommunications Commission,
ordinary course enjoyment of a
of law (Sec. 2, right or office 12. Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657,
-to correct an act Rule 65). to which the 13. Government Service Insurance System,
other is 14. Employees Compensation Commission,
entitled (Sec. 15. Agricultural Invention Board,
3, Rule 65). 16. Insurance Commission,
-to prevent/ 17. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission,
disconitue or -to command
18. Board of Investments,
undoing of an
act 19. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and
Against Directed against Directed Directed against an 20. voluntary arbitrators authorized by law
whom an entity or against an entity or person
person exercising entity or person exercising Basis of petition (Grounds for petition)
judicial or quasi- exercising ministerial You have to claim that the tribunal or officer exercising judicial/
judicial function. judicial, quasi- function. quasi- judicial functions acted either:
judicial or 1. without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
ministerial
function.
2.with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
Ground Entity or person is Entity or person Entity or person is jurisdiction.
alleged to have is alleged to alleged to have
acted without have acted: unlawfully Conditions
jurisdiction; in without neglected a There is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
excess of jurisdiction; in ministerial duty; or the ordinary course of law.
jurisdiction; or excess of excluded another
with grave abuse jurisdiction; or from a right or
TN: This must be alleged in your petition
of discretion with grave office.
abuse of
discretion Verified Petition
Purpose Purpose is to Purpose is to Purpose is for The Aggrieved party shall file a verified petition seeking the
annul or nullify a have respondent to: annulment of subject order of the court;
proceeding. respondent 1. Do the act
desist from required; and TN: The Petition must be accompanied by the following:
further 2. To pay
1. certified true copy of the judgment or order
proceeding. damage.
2. Certification of non-forum shopping
Nature This remedy is This remedy is This remedy is
corrective – to preventive and affirmative or
correct negative – to positive (if the What is to be Corrected in Certiorari
usurpation of restrain or performance of a It is proper to correct error of jurisdiction, and NOT error of judgment
jurisdiction (Sec. prevent duty is ordered) or
Q: AY Company retrenched 21 of its employees on the ground that NOTE: It is commenced by a verified petition accompanied by a
it was suffering business losses. The AY Company Union filed a Notice certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject
of Strike with DOLE. The case was referred to the Secretary of Labor thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
after the parties were not able to settle their differences at the NCMB. thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping (Sec. 2,
The Secretary of Labor ruled in favor of the AY Company Union. AY Rule 65).
Company moved for reconsideration. The MR was denied by
Secretary of Labor and ruled that voluntary arbitrators’ decisions, PETITION FOR PROHIBITION (SEC.2)
orders, resolutions or awards shall not be the subject of motion for Prohibition is a provisional remedy to stop a tribunal, coporation,
reconsideration. AY Company then filed an Original Petition for board, officer, or person from doing a particular act.
Certiorari and Prohibition with CA. CA dismissed the petition and held
that AY Company erred in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 Against whom filed (Respondents)
instead of Rule 43 which properly covers decisions of voluntary labor a.) Tribunal
arbitrators. Is CA correct? b.) Corporation
c.) Board
A: NO. Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy and not under d.) Officer
Rule 43. It has long been settled that the remedy of an aggrieved e.) Person
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 TN: whether exercising judicial or quasi-judicial, or ministerial
subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for functions
certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
Difference with certiorari
While a government office may prohibit altogether the filing of a In certiorari, you cannot file it against a corporation or persons. Also,
motion for reconsideration with respect to its decisions or orders, the the board, tribunal or officers must be exercising judicial/ quasi-
fact remains that certiorari inherently requires the filing of a motion judicial functions, and does not include the performance of a
for reconsideration, which is the tangible representation of the ministerial function.
opportunity given to the office to correct itself. Regardless of
proscription against the filing of a motion for reconsideration, the Basis of petition (Grounds)
same may be filed on the assumption that rectification of the decision A.That the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person, acted
or order must be obtained, and before a petition for certiorari may either:
be instituted (Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc. v. PWU-AGLO, G.R. a. Without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
No. 180962, February 26, 2014, Del Castillo, J.). b. With Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction;
Material dates in the petition B. There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
Under the material date rule, the following material dates must be remedy in the ordinary course of law
stated in the petition:
TN: The basis of your petition is the same as that in certiorari.
Q: Albert was appointed Election Registrar of the Municipality of Q: Can a mayor be compelled by mandamus to issue a business
Sevilla supposedly to replace the respondent Election Registrar permit?
Richard who was transferred to another municipality without his A: NO. A mayor cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue a
consent and who refused to accept his aforesaid transfer, as in fact business permit since the exercise of the same is delegated police
he continued to occupy his aforesaid position and exercise his power hence, discretionary in nature. Section 444(b)(3)(iv) of the
functions thereto. Albert then filed a petition for mandamus against Local Government Code of 1991, is a manifestation of the delegated
Richard but the trial court dismissed Albert's petition contending that police power of a municipal corporation. Necessarily, the exercise
quo warranto is the proper remedy. Is the court correct in its ruling? thereof cannot be deemed ministerial. As to the question of whether
Why? (2001 Bar) the power is validly exercised, the matter is within the province of a
writ of certiorari, but certainly, not of mandamus (Rimando v.
A: YES. Mandamus will not lie. This remedy applies only where Naguilian Emission Testing Center, Inc., G.R. No. 198860, July 23,
petitioner’s right is founded clearly in law, not when it is doubtful. 2012).
Richard was transferred without his consent. It is tantamount to
removal without cause and is contrary to fundamental guarantee on Q: Fotokina filed with the RTC a petition for mandamus to compel
non-removal except for cause. Considering that Richard continued to the COMELEC to implement a contract it had with the former
occupy the position and exercise his functions therein, the proper regarding the automation of the elections. The Office of the Solicitor
remedy is quo warranto and not mandamus. General (OSG), representing COMELEC Chairman Go, opposed the
petition on the ground that mandamus does not lie to enforce
Exhaustion of administrative remedies contractual obligations. During the proceedings, the majority
GR: Mandamus will not issue when administrative remedies are still Commissioners filed a manifestation that Chairman Go was not
available. authorized by the COMELEC En Banc to oppose the petition.
XPNs: 1. May the OSG represent Chairman Go before the RTC
1. If the party is in estoppel (Vda. de Tan v. Veterans Backpay notwithstanding that his position is contrary to that of the
Commission, G.R. No. L-12944, March 30, 1959); or majority?
2. Only questions of law are raised (Madrigal v. Lecaroz, G.R. No. 2. Is a petition for mandamus an appropriate remedy to enforce
L-46218, October 23, 1990). contractual obligations? (2006 Bar)
A:
Discretionary duty 1. YES. The OSG can represent Chairman Go before the RTC. The
GR: Mandamus is only applicable to a ministerial duty. However, OSG is an independent office. Its hands are not shackled to the
mandamus can be used to the extent of requiring the performance cause of its client agency. In the discharge of its tasks, the
of a discretionary duty to act but not to require performance of such primordial concern of the OSG is to see to it that the best interest
duty in a particular manner. of the government is upheld.
XPNs: 2. NO. The COMELEC cannot be compelled by a writ of mandamus
1. There has been gross abuse of discretion; to discharge a duty that involves the exercise of judgment and
2. Manifest injustice; or discretion, especially where disbursement of public funds is
3. Palpable excess of authority (Kant Wong v. PCGG, G.R. No. concerned (COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992,
79484, December 7, 1987) September 18, 2002).
Proceedings after comment What is important is there is allegation of proof that there is grave
The court may hear the case or require the parties to file memoranda. abuse of discretion; how to prove? That there is despotic, capricious
and whimsical manner in exercise of authority; the phrase is not a
Action of the court fatal defect because it is mere conclusion of law
It may grant the petition or deny it if it finds it to be patently without
merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, issues raised therein are too What is the governing procedure of the CPMQ? Rule 46
unsubstantial to warrant consideration. If un-meritorious, the court
may award in favor of the respondent treble costs against petitioner Certiorari + Habeas Corpus – pwede. How? Function?
and counsel. -Certiorari reaches the record to determine if there is grave abuse of
discretion; Habeas Corpus to reach the body
This is one of the innovations introduced in the new rules. There is -Habeas Corpus is the fastest relief against illegal
now a penalty for bringing in unmeritorious petitions for certiorari detention/confinement
before the higher court. It is a punishment.
Court may impose motu proprio other disciplinary sanction on erring Nature of Certiorari: limited in scope and narrow in character. Why?
lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for Not function of the court to examine evidence again; only to find out
certiorari. if there is error of jurisdiction; it is a high prerogative writ
Service and enforcement of order or judgment Appeals in civil cases- there must be assignment of errors
Judgment of the court shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial Appeals in criminal cases- effect of an appeal is to throw away the
agency, tribunal, corporation, board or officer in such manner as the entire case for review
court may direct. Disobedience thereto is punishable as contempt.
Execution may issue for any damages or costs awarded. Expanded concept of Judicial Power
-Villanueva v. JBS
Dean Monteclar: In the RTC, if you file a petition for certiorari, -Araullo v. Aquino III
prohibition, mandamus, questioning the decision of the municipal
court. You do not have to furnish a petition to the respondent lack of jurisdiction- absolute lack of authority of the court to proceed
because the RTC will have to first examine whether your with the case
petition should be given due course or not. excess of jurisdiction- transcends its power even if no statutory
But if the petition is filed in the CA or the SC, you must furnish authority
copy to the respondent or the other party because they will be
required to answer if the court finds the petition is sufficient in form Interlocutory Order (ex. Motion to Dismiss) – can be questioned in a
and substance. petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
From discussions:
Certiorari Jurisdiction
Certiorari- to correct an act; discretionary RTC – LC; MTC
Prohibition- to prevent/ discontinue an act or undoing of an act; CA – in aid of appellate jurisdiction
discretionary + ministerial Sandiganbayan – original & appellate court
Mandamus- to compel an act; ministerial acts; include writ of - in Certiorari, in aid of appellate jurisdiction
continuing mandamus
GR: do not proceed directly with Supreme Court because of doctrine
Ocampo v. Enriquez- can combine 3 actions of hierarchy of courts
XPN: (direct resort to SC)
Certiorari 1. transcendental importance
-common law origin 2. public good matters
-corrects error of jurisdiction
GR: Certiorari not a substitute for a lost appeal
-because they are mutually exclusive
QUESTION: Distinguish the expanded concept of Judicial Power in CPM: when do you consider that jurisdiction over person of
Rule 65 and Sec. 1 of Art. VIII of Constitution? respondent acquired?
-Villanueva v. Judicial & Bar Council- “set right, undo & restrain any - moment the court orders to file comment
act”
-Is Motion for Reconsideration an adequate remedy?
Relaxation of Rules -Yes
-XPNs to wrong choice of remedy is fatal and should be dismissed: Hon. Philip Aguinaldo v. Pres. Benigno Aquino (2016)
1. PFC under Rule 65 – 60 days; was filed within reglementary period XPNs: 60-day period relaxed
for filing PFRC under Rule 45 15 days
2. Petition should allege error of judgment “uncontrolled” – discretionary (ex. Public prosecutor)
3. There must be sufficient reason to justify relaxation of rules GR: cannot be controlled by mandamus ang prosecutor
XPN: if klaro na kayo
Former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierez v. House of Rep. Judiciary
Committee Case: Sharp Intl. Mktg. v. CA
Aurillo v. Rabi – can undo acts ang prohibition -discretionary and ministerial acts
-while mandamus will not lie to control discretion the writ of
mandamus may be issued to exercise of discretion but not discretion
PROHIBITION itself. However, writ of mandamus may be issued
-to desist or restrain for orderly administration of justice and prevent
strong arm of law from oppressive and vindictive manner Nature of Judgment in Mandamus- special judgment
-preventive remedy -mandamus must be unhampered
-appealable
-should include prayer for TRO or writ of preliminary injunction
because it will not arrest the course of the proceeding if not
prayed; mo-proceed ang case if not prayed for