Declaratory Relief distinguished from Prohibition

1. Let us look at the requisites of the two. The requisites of an action for declaratory re-
lief are: (a) the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or oth-
er written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance; (b) the
terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial con-
struction; (c) there must have been no breach of the documents in question; (d) there
must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between per-
sons whose interests are adverse; (e) the issue must be ripe for judicial determina-
tion; and (f) adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of ac-
tion or proceeding.

On the other hand, For a party to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, he must establish
the following requisites: (a) it must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board or
person exercising functions, judicial or ministerial; (b) the tribunal, corporation, board or
person has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discre-
tion; and (c) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.

2. Now let’s go with their subject matter. For declaratory relief, the subject matter of the
controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, execu-
tive order or regulation, or ordinance while for prohibition it may involve any proceed-
ing.

3. Finally as to their purpose. In declaratory relief, the purposes are to determine any
question of construction or validity arising from the subject of the action and to seek
for declaration of the petitioner’s rights therein. On the other hand, in prohibition, the
purpose is to command the respondent to desist from further proceedings.

Now there are instances wherein an action for declaratory relief was actually treated as
a prohibition by the Supreme Court.

In the case of Diaz vs Secretary of Finance where it involved questioning VAT toll fees,
the Court held that a petition for declaratory relief shall be treated as a petition for prohi-
bition if the case has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be re-
solved for public good.

Thus, even if a petition was initially for declaratory relief, it may be treated as one for
prohibition if it has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be re-
solved for public good.
Prohibition distinguished from Certiorari

1. The first distinction pertains to against what they may be directed to. For a writ of
prohibition, it is directed not only against a respondent exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions but also even against one exercising ministerial functions. On the
other hand, a writ of certiorari is directed against the acts of respondents performing
judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

2. The second distinction pertains to against who the writs are directed. For a writ of
prohibition, it is directed against the tribunal itself commanding it to desist from fur-
ther proceeding with the case. On the other hand, a writ of certiorari is directed
against the action of the court which is sought to be annulled.

3. Finally, as to their purpose; in prohibition, the purpose is to command the respondent

to desist from further proceedings, while in certiorari, the purpose is to annul or mod-
ify the judgment, order, resolution or proceedings of the public respondent.

An example here would be a case wherein an affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction

over the subject matter was alleged in the pleading which was very apparent. Let’s say
the case was for recovery of possession of a real property located in Cebu City with an
assessed value of P50,000.00 and it was filed with the MTC instead of the RTC. But the
court did not order the dismissal of the case and instead proceeded with it.

A prohibition may be filed here in order that the court stop from proceeding with the
case because of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here, the court itself is ordered
to desist itself from continuing with the case.

A certiorari may also be filed here which pleads to the court that they annul their deci-
sion in not dismissing the case because of the apparent lack of jurisdiction. Here, it is
now the act of the court in not dismissing the case which is questioned and sought to be
annulled.