Rule 65-C (10-11)

10. FCC Cudia vs. The Superintendent of the PMA

Facts: Cudia was a member of Siklab Diwa of the PMA.Tthe combined classes of the Navy and Air Force 1CL cadets
had a lesson examination on Operations Research. Later on, Professor Berong of the 5th period class issued a
Delinquency Report against Cudia because he was “[l]ate for two (2) minutes in his Eng 412 class.” In his Explanation of
Report, Cudia reasoned out that: “I came directly from OR432 Class. We were dismissed a bit late by our instructor Sir.”
He was punished because of the result of his conversation with Dr. Costales, who said that she never dismissed her class
late. Cudia wrote an appeal to seek reconsideration of the punishment. He asserted: “I strongly believe that I am not in
control of the circumstances, our 4th period class ended 1500H and our 5th period class, which is ENG412, started 1500H
also. Immediately after 4th period class, I went to my next class without any intention of being late Sir.”
Cudia was then informed that Maj. Hindang reported him to the HC for violation of the Honor Code. The Honor Report
stated: Lying, that is giving statement that perverts the truth in his written appeal, stating that his 4th period class ended at
1500H that made him late in the succeeding class. The first formal hearing started. After several minutes, they went out
and the Presiding Officer announced the 9-0 guilty verdict. Cudia, who already served 9 touring hours, was then informed
of the unanimous votes finding him guilty of violating the Honor Code. He was immediately placed in the PMA Holding
Center until the resolution of his appeal.
Six days prior to the graduation ceremonies of the PMA, petitioners Renato P. Cudia, acting for himself and in behalf of
his son, Cadet First Class Cudia and Berteni Cataluña Causing filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
with application for extremely urgent TRO.

Issue: Whether the petition for mandamus is proper.

Ruling: No. Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases. It cannot be availed against an official or government agency
whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment. For a writ to issue, petitioners should have a clear legal right
to the thing demanded, and there should be an imperative duty on the part of respondents to perform the act sought to be
mandated.
The same reasons can be said as regards the other reliefs being sought by petitioners, which pertain to the HC and the
CRAB proceedings. In the absence of a clear and unmistakable provision of a law, a mandamus petition does not lie to
require anyone to a specific course of conduct or to control or review the exercise of discretion; it will not issue to compel
an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do or give to the applicant anything to
which he is not entitled by law.

11. Ampatuan Jr., vs. Secretary De Lima

Facts: Innocent civilians were massacred in Sitio Masalay. Among the principal suspects was petitioner, then the Mayor
of the Municipality of Datu Unsay. Inquest proceedings were conducted against petitioner before he was flown to Manila
and detained at the main office of the NBI. The NBI and the Philippine National Police (PNP) charged other suspects,
numbering more than a hundred, for what became aptly known as the Maguindanao massacre.
Information for murder was filed against petitioner. The Court granted the request for the transfer of venue. However,
prior to the transfer of the venue of the trial to Metro Manila, the Prosecution filed manifestations regarding the filing of
additional information for murder against petitioner in Cotabato City RTC. Later on, additional information for murder
were filed against petitioner in the RTC in Quezon City, and the new venue of the trial pursuant to the resolution of the
Court.
Later on, Dalandag was admitted into the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. Dalandag was listed as one of the
Prosecution witnesses. Petitioner, through counsel, wrote to respondent Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima and Assistant
Chief State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon to request the inclusion of Dalandag in the information for murder considering
that Dalandag had already confessed his participation in the massacre through his two sworn declarations. However,
Secretary De Lima denied petitioner’s request.

Issue: Whether the respondent may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag as an accused for multiple
murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre despite his admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ.

Ruling: No. In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to in order to
compel respondent tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner
or the particular way discretion is to be exercised, or to compel the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the
exercise of judgment or discretion. Respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act on the letter-request of
petitioner, but may not be compelled to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny such letter-request. Considering that
respondent Secretary of Justice already denied the letter-request, mandamus was no longer available as petitioner's
recourse.