For judicial determination.

And when do you say that the issue is rite for judicial determination? When? When a litigation involving
the writ of contract is inevitable. When a litigation is inevitable then it is said that the issue is rite for
judicial determination. So what did we say a while ago, there must be no violation, there must be no
breach. Now take note class that if there is violation, there is a breach of the contract, then you cannot
file an action for declaratory release, okay.
Now let’s have a problem. Let us say that there is X an there is Y, so X and Y, and X is the lessor and Y is
the lessee and they have a lease contract or contract of lease. Lease contract involving commercial
building, and then the lease contract seems to be vague, there are clauses that are not clear and so
because of the, because there are clauses and stidrations that are not clear then Y did not pay the rent.
So the none payment of the rent is a violation of the lease contract. If you do not pay, you violate the
contract, okay. And so, because Y did not pay his rent and therefore he violated the lease contract X
filed against y an action for declaratory relief, asking the court to interpret the contract of lease and for
the court to declare the rights and the obligations of the parties under that lease contract.
Question in the bar exam, may an action for declaratory relief be filed considering the facts given in the
problem? The answer class, no, why not, because the contract has already been violated. So an action
for the reformation of the lease contract, okay, cannot be filed, so if let us say X files an action against Y
for the reformation of these contract of lease because of the clauses that are not clear but there is
already a violation, then the action cannot prosper as an action for declaratory relief. So what is the
remedy of X? Well, his remedy is what, either an action for specific performance or an action for
recision.
There was this case, okay, and it came to be known as Galicto versus President Benigno Simeon Aquino
and this is a 2012 case, alright, and in this petition, this is a petition for declaratory relief to assail the
validity of an executive order. President Aquino issued an executive order and Galicto was adversely
affected by this executive order. And so he filed a petition for declaratory relief asking the court to
interpret the, well in this, in this case of Galicto what was filed against President Aquino was a petition
for certiorari, okay. To assail the validity of the executive order, it was held in that case class, that a
petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy, instead it should be a petition for declaratory relief to
assail the validity of an executive order and it should be filed with the RTC and not the supreme court
because Section 1 of rule 63 says that it should be filed with the RTC, okay.
Now, in Liga ng mga Baranggay National versus city mayor of Manila, this case was cited in Galicto
versus President Benigno Simeon Aquino in Liga ng mga Barangay National, the petition that was filed
was a petition for certiorari, assailing the validity of an ordinance. It was held that the remedy to assail
an ordinance is not a petition for certiorari but a petition for a declaratory relief to be filed with the RTC,
okay, so just take note of those examples.
Now, In a petition for a declaratory relief is a third party complaint allowed? No. Is a compulsory
counterclaim allowed? Yes, so a third party complaint is not allowed in a petition for declaratory relief.
But i’d like you to know class that if a petition for declaratory relief is filed and is pending in court and
while the petition is pending in court and a violation of the contract was committed by any of the parties
then the action is now converted, the petition is now converted into an ordinary civil action and
therefore a third party complaint may now be allowed, okay, so take note of those discussions involving
rule 63.
Now, we go to Rule 64, and rule 64 class is a review of judgement Or final order of the COMELEC and
what, and Commission on Audit, so let us say that the COMELEC or the Commission on Audit renders a
judgement or issues a final order, then the party agreed by the judgement may bring a petition with the
supreme court to review the judgement of the COMELEC or Commission on Audit file a petition with the
supreme court, okay. Rule 64 says review of judgements final order of the COMELEC and Commission on
Audit. Now, so the final judgement of the COMELEC or the Commission on Audit is reviewable by the
supreme court under what rule? Under rule 65 which is certiorari, okay, but i’d like you to know that the
period for filing it is only 30 days from notice of the judgement or final order sought to be reviewed, but
when it comes to the COMELEC what may be brought by way of certiorari to the supreme court is the
judgement or final order issued by the COMELEC and back, okay.
So we go to rule 65.
Rule 65 is still a special civil action, so we have discussed how many civil actions? Interpleader and
declaratory relief and now we come to rule 65 which is certiorari, that’s one, prohibition, and
mandamus, okay. So rule 65 deals with how many special civil actions? We have 3, certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus. So this is rule 65, is a special civil action, certiorari. When we were talking
about appeals we also mentioned a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal and that is rule
45, our lesson now is 65. So what is a certiorari? Well, it is a special civil action against a tribunal board
or officer exercising judicial or crucial judicial function which is alleged in a verified petition filed by an
aggrieved party to have acted or in excess o his jurisdiction or in abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or jurisdiction and there is no appeal or any claim speedy on adequate remedy in the ordinary court of
law praying for a judgement annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal boar or officer,
okay. So the , the prayer. Is to annul or to assign or even to modify the. Judgement or the proceeding of
the respondent tribunal, alright. O take note class that here in rule 65 certiorari as a special civil action,
it can be brought by means of a verified petition against, against a tribunal or an officer exercising what
function? Judicial or way side judicial function. So if the tribunal is exercise or if the officer or the body is
exercising a legislative function or an executive function then this petition may not be tenable may not
be filed because it can be filed only if the respondent tribunal or the respondent officer is exercising
judicial or queasy judicial function, alright. I hope you understand what we are talking about, and there
is no appeal or any plain speedy and adequate in the ordinary court of law and that is why class we will
explain this more when we come back that is why in certiorari as a special civil action it is required
subject to some exemption that a motion for reconsideration should be filed because exemption for
reconsideration has been sent to be a speedy plane and adequate remedy. We will continue from here
next meeting