100.

  Why is prohibition an extraordinary remedy?[103]

Ans: Because it is the only available where there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

101.  Distinguish certiorari from prohibition.[104]

Ans: The purpose of certiorari is to annul proceedings had without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; hence certiorari is a
corrective remedy and operates on acts already consummated. On the other hand,
prohibition is a preventive remedy whose function is to restrain the doing of some act
about to be done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already
accomplished.
Certiorari is directed only against judicial or quasi-judicial acts while
prohibition may be directed against judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial acts.

102.  Distinguish injunction from prohibition. [105]

Ans: Injunction is generally directed only against a person not exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, while prohibition is directed against a tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions.

103.  Distinguish prohibition from mandamus.[106]

Ans: the object of mandamus is to compel a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person to comply with a ministerial duty while prohibition has its object that of
preventing the tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person from executing an act
not within or in excess of its jurisdiction. Mandamus is an affirmative remedy for it
commands that something be done; prohibition is purely negative for it commands
that something be left undone.

104.  Define mandamus.[107]
Ans: A special civil action wherein the petitioner prays a judgment be rendered
commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to perform an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, the
performance of which the respondent has been unlawfully neglecting.

105.  Mandamus is also available against a person who unlawfully

excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other persons is entitled. Distinguish this type of mandamus from
quo warranto.[108]
Ans: Where the respondent merely excludes the petitioner from an office without
usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding the office, the proper remedy is
mandamus. If the respondent however claims any right to the office and usurps,
intrudes, or unlawfully holds it against the petitioner, the appropriate remedy would
be quo warranto.

106.  Give examples where mandamus would be proper.[109]

Ans: Mandamus is available to compel a judge to allow an appeal, where the same
was timely and duly filed and the proper fees failed. It has been held that a
mandamus suit is proper to compel GSIS to continue paying member’s monthly
pension.

107.  May mandamus issue to compel the performance of a discretionary

duty?[110]  Explain.
Ans: Yes. It is settled jurisprudence that the registration of a transfer of share of
stock, and the consequent issuance of a new stock certificate to the transferee, is a
ministerial duty on the part of the corporation.

108.  An order of an RTC setting the case for pre-trial was duly sent to and
received by the plaintiff and defendant and their respective lawyers. On
the date of the pre-trial, plaintiff and his counsel did not appear and
defendant moved to have plaintiff’s complaint dismissed. The court
denied the motion and reset the pre-trial. Can defendant successfully sue
for mandamus before a higher tribunal?[111]  Explain.
Ans: No, the defendant cannot successfully sue for mandamus before a higher
tribunal.

109.  P filed a collection case for P250,000 against D in the RTC of Iligan.
D filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. RTC
denied the motion and set the case for pre-trial. D filed a special civil
action for mandamus with the CA to compel the RTC to dismiss the case.
Would the mandamus suit prosper?[112] Explain.

110.  Alleging that his father passed away in 1992 and left a holographic
will, which is not in the custody of his mother, Duterte filed with the RTC
a petition for mandamus with damages to compel his mother to produce
the will so that probate proceedings for the allowance of the will could be
instituted. Was the filing of the petition for mandamus proper? [113] Explain.
Ans: No. this is because there is plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, that is, the filling of a petition for probate under s1 r76 and then
moving for the production of the will under s2-5 r75.

111.  May mandamus lie to compel the performance of contractual duties?

[114]
Explain.
Ans: No. Contractual duties are not specifically enjoined by law but by the
government between the parties. The proper remedy then of the aggrieved party is
to file and ordinary civil action for specific performance.

112.  In a petition for mandamus, may the petitioner recover damages

from the respondent?[115]
Ans: Yes. Aside from praying for a judgment compelling the respondent to perform
the ministerial duty, the petitioner may also pray that the court order the respondent
“to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.

113.  When may a petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus be

filed?[116] Explain.

114.  May a motion for extension of time to file the petition under R65 be
filed?
Ans: Yes. While the provision in s4 r65, which states that no extension of time to file
the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case
exceeding 15 days was deleted by A.M. No. 07-12-SC, this does not mean that the
filing of a motion for extension was absolutely prohibited.

115.  Who should be joined as respondent’s in a R65 petition? [118]

116.  Whose duty is it to appear in behalf of the respondents? [119]

Ans: It shall be the duty of the private respondent to appear and defend, both in his
own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent. Unless otherwise specifically
directed by the court where the petion is pending, the public respondents shall not
appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading therein.

117.  Will the filing of the petition under R65 interrupt the course of the
principal case? [120]
Ans: No, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has
been issued against the public respondent form further proceeding in the case.

118.  P filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC against the Register of
Deeds and the Land Registration Authority in order to compel the latter to
issue to him a transfer certificate of title. The respondents filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground that P should have elevated the matter by way
of consulta. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss as well as the
succeeding motion for reconsideration by the respondents. The
respondents then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals with a prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and
writ of preliminary injunction. After 20 days from the filing of the petition
for certiorari, the CA required P to file a comment but did not issue a TRO
or Preliminary Injunction. The RTC then issued an order suspending the
proceedings before it during the pendency of the certiorari cases before
the CA. P moved for the continuation of the proceedings but the RTC
denied P’s motion. (a) Is the action of the RTC proper? [121] (b) May the
RTC judge be administratively charged? 
Ans: a. No, the action of the RTC is not proper. Under s7 r65, the public respondent
shall proceed with the principal case within 10 days from the filing of the petition for
certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a
preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration.
 b. Yes, Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case
may be a ground for an administrative charge.

119.  What is quo warranto?

Ans: In Latin, quo warranto means “by what right or authority.”
It is a special civil action brought in the name of the Republic against the
usurpation of public office, position or franchise, and commenced by the filing of a
verified petition.

120.   Which courts have jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto? [124]
Ans: The supreme court, the Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts have
original and concurrent jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction in
quo warranto arising in cases filed under E.O. Nos. 1,2,14,14-A, in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.

121.   What is the venue in quo warranto proceeding?[125]

Ans: if brought before the RTC, it should be filed with the RTC exercising jurisdiction
over the territorial area where the respondents resides. If the action is commenced
by the solicitor general, it may be brought in the RTC in Manila, in the Court of
Appeals, or in the Supreme Court.

122.  Mandamus is also available against a person who unlawfully exclude

another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other person is entitled. Distinguish this type of mandamus from quo
warranto.[126]
Ans: Where the respondent merely excludes the petitioner from an office without
usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding the office, the proper remedy is
mandamus. If the respondent however claims any right to the office and usurps,
intrudes into, or unlawfully holds it against the petitioner, the proper remedy would
be quo warranto.

123.   Petitioner Fabian was appointed election registrar of municipality of

sevilla supposedly to replace the respondent election registrar Pablo who
was transferred to another municipality without his consent and who
refused to accept his aforesaid transfer, much less to vacate his position
on Bogo town as election registrar as in fact he continued to occupy his
aforesaid position and exercise his functions thereto. Petitioner Fabian
then filed a petition for mandamus against Pablo but the trial court
dismissed F’s petition contending that quo warranto is the proper remedy.
Is the court correct in its ruling? Why? ( 01 Bar Q3) [127]
Ans: Yes, the court is correct in its ruling. Where the respondent merely excludes the
petitioner from an office without usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holing the
office, the proper remedy I mandamus. If the respondent however claims any right to
the office and usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds it against the petitioner, the
proper remedy would be quo warranto.
124.   Against whom may a quo warranto case be brought?[128]
Ans:1. A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public
office, position of franchise. 2. 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
3. An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being
legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

125.   Classify quo warranto.[129]

Ans: Quo warranto may be:
1. Compulsory or discretionary
2. Brought in the name of the Republic or the name of a private individual.

126.   When is quo warranto compulsory?[130]

Ans: The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when directed by the president of
the Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise he has a good reason to
believe that any case specified in s1 r66 can be established by proof, must
commence the action.

127.   When is quo warranto discretionary?[131]

Ans: The Solicitor General or 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.

128.  Who may commence a quo warranto action?[132]

Ans: 1. The Solicitor General 2. A public prosecutor 3. 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.

129.   Distinguish a quo warranto action commenced by a private

individual from a quo warranto action commenced by the solicitor general
or prosecutor.[133]
Ans: In the action commenced by the private individual, it is necessary for the
petitioner to prove his right to the office in dispute. If he fails to prove this, it is
unnecessary for the court to pass upon the right of the respondent to the office.

130.   In an action for usurpation, can the court award damages sustained
as a result of the usurpation to the person adjudged entitled to the office?
[134]

Ans: No, such damages must be sought in an action to be filed within one year after
the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner’s right to the office in question.

131.   In an action for usurpation, what judgment shall the court render of
usurpation is found?[135]
 Ans: The court shall render judgment that such respondent be ousted and altohetehr
exluded therefrom, and that the petitioner or realtor, as the case may be, recover his
costs.

132.  What is the prescriptive period for bringing a quo warranto action

affecting title to public office?[136]
Ans: the action must be brought within one year after the cause of such ouster. Or
the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position arose.
Ci