RULE 64
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE
COMELEC AND THE COA
Sec. 1. Scope.
Sec. 2. Mode of review.
A judgment or final order or resolution of the Comelec and the COA may be brought by
the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as
hereinafter provided.
Sec. 3. Time to file petition.
The petition shall be filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration
of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of
the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is
denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which
shall not be less than 5 days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
Sec. 4. Docket and other lawful fees.
Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court the docket
and other lawful fees and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs.
Sec. 5. Form and contents of petition.
The petition shall be verified and filed in 18 legible copies. The petition shall name
the aggrieved party as petitioner and shall join as respondents the Commission
concerned and the person or persons interested in sustaining the judgment, final order
or resolution a quo. The petition shall (1) state the facts with certainty, (2) present
clearly the issues involved, (3) set forth the grounds and brief arguments relied upon
for review, and (4) pray for judgment annulling or modifying the questioned judgment,
final order or resolution. Findings of fact of the Commission supported by substantial
evidence shall be final and non-reviewable.
The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or
certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution subject thereof, together
with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to
therein and other documents relevant and pertinent thereto. The requisite number of
copies if the petition shall contain plain copies of all documents attached to the original
copy of said petition.
The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the
period fixed herein, and shall contain a sworn certification against forum shopping.
The petition shall further be accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereof on the
Commission concerned and on the adverse party, and of the timely payment of
docket and other lawful fees.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Sec. 6. Order to comment.
If the Supreme Court finds the petitions sufficient in form and substance, the Court
shall order the respondents to file their comments on the petition within 10 days
from notice thereof; otherwise, the Court may dismiss the petition outright. The court
may also dismiss the petition if it was filed manifestly for delay, or the question
raised is too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
Sec. 7. Comments of respondents.
The comments of the respondents shall be filed in 18 legible copies. The original
shall be accompanied by certified true copies of such material portions of the record
as are referred to therein together with other supporting papers. The requisite number
of copies of the comments shall contain plain copies of all documents attached to the
original and a copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner.
No other pleading may be filed by any party unless required or allowed by the
Court.
Sec. 8. Effect of filing.
The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment,
final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, unless the Supreme Court shall
direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.
Sec. 9. Submission for decision.
Unless the Court sets the case for oral argument, or requires the parties to submit
memoranda, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the
comments of the petition, and such other pleadings or papers as may be required or
allowed, or the expiration of the period to do so.
RULE 65
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS respondent respondent exercise judicial and/or non-judicial
exercising judicial functions.
Sec. 1. Petition for CERTIORARI. or quasi-judicial
When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions (1) has functions.
acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and (2) there is no appeal, or A respondent is said to be exercising judicial functions where he has (1) the power
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a to determine what the law is, (2) what are the legal rights of the parties, and (3) he
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.
facts with certainty and praying that the judgment be rendered annulling or modifying
the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs The respondent acts without jurisdiction if he does not have the legal power to
as law and justice may require. determine the case.

The petition shall be accompanied by a (1) certified true copy of the judgment,
order or resolution subject thereof, (2) copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and (3) a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
The writ of certiorari is proper to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the lower
court, or grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Where
the error is not one of jurisdiction but an error of law or fact which is a mistake of
judgment, appeal is the remedy.
However, the SC has doctrinally observed that it is sometimes necessary to delve into
factual issues in order to resolve allegations of grave abuse of discretion as a ground
for the special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition.
“person aggrieved” – refers to one who is a party with legal standing founded upon
material interest in the proceedings before said court.
There is excess of jurisdiction where the respondent, being clothed with the power
to determine the case, oversteps his authority as determined by law.
There is grave abuse of discretion where the respondent acts in a capricious,
whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of his judgment as to be
said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
A requisite common to the writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is that these
writs may be availed of only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law from the acts of the respondent.
Where the proper remedy is appeal, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. The
original action for certiorari is not a substitute for appeal, especially when the remedy
of appeal was lost thru the fault of the petitioner, except where the court acted without
jurisdiction in issuing the order.

The mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari, in connection with a pending However, even when appeal is available and is the proper remedy, the Supreme Court
case in a lower court, does not interrupt the course of the latter if there is no writ of has allowed a writ of certiorari:
injunction. 1. Where the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy;
2. Where the orders were also issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction;
Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are distinguished as follows: 3. For certain special considerations, as public welfare or public policy;
Certiorari Prohibition Mandamus 4. Where, in criminal actions, the court rejects the rebuttal evidence of the
With respect to the Intended to Intended to Intended to prosecution as, in case if acquittal, there could be no remedy;
purpose of the correct an act prevent the compel the 5. Where the order is a patent nullity;
writ performed by the commission or performance of the 6. Where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations.
respondent. carrying out of an act desired.
act. All of these petitions must be verified and, in the case certiorari and prohibition,
With respect to the Extends only to Discretionary and Ministerial acts. accompanied by certified copies of the judgment or order complained of and the
act sought to be discretionary acts. ministerial acts. pertinent pleadings and documents.
controlled
With respect to the Lies only against a Available against respondents who
A remedy is considered “plain, speedy and adequate” if it will promptly relieve the
petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or
agency. Thus, while in the regular course of the appeal the interlocutory acts of the
court may be assigned as errors, such remedy may not necessarily be adequate as it
can be availed of only in the future and prejudice may have been caused in the interim,
hence certiorari is permitted to be availed of.
The rule is that, before certiorari may be availed of, the petitioner must have filed a
motion for reconsideration by the lower court of the act or order complained of.
The purpose of this requirement is to enable the lower court, in the first instance, to
pass upon and correct its mistakes without the intervention of the higher court. For this
reason, it has been held that such motion for reconsideration, reiterating the same
grounds against the order sought to be considered, is not covered by the pro forma
rule if it is directed against an interlocutory order.
In the case of a final order or judgment, a motion for reconsideration prior to taking
an appeal is not required; hence, in such a case, the pro forma rule applies.
Motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order may be dispensed with:
1. Where the order is a Patent nullity
2. Where the Questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court
3. Where there is an Urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any
further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government
4. Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be
Useless
5. Where petitioner was Deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency
for relief
6. Where, in a criminal case, Relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the
granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable
7. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for Lack of due process
8. Where the proceeding was Ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object
9. Where the issue raised is one purely of Law or where public interest is
involved. (PQU-DREL)
In original actions for certiorari under this Rule, the findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals are not conclusive or binding upon the Supreme Court.
Sec. 2. Petition for PROHIBITION.
When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its
or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its
or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that the
judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further
proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or
order subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
Prohibition is a preventive remedy. However, to prevent the respondent from
performing the act sought to be prevented during the pendency of the proceedings for
the writ, the petitioner should obtain a restraining order and/or a writ if
preliminary injunction.
Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but not to legislative
functions.
In order that prohibition will lie against an executive officer, the petitioner must first
exhaust all administrative remedies.
Prohibition, and not mandamus, is the remedy where a motion to dismiss is improperly
denied.
Sec. 3. Petition for MANDAMUS.
When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person (1) unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station, or (2) unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that the judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages
sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
Discretion – a power or a right conferred upon them by law of acting officially, under
certain circumstances, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others.
If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or
when the duty shall be performed, such duty us discretionary and not ministerial. The
duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of
official discretion or judgment.
Mandamus will lie to compel a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty, and
petitioner must show that he has a well-defined, clear and certain right to warrant the
grant thereof.
However, in extreme situations generally in criminal cases, mandamus lies to compel
the performance by the fiscal of what ostensibly are discretionary functions where, by
reason of grave abuse of discretion on his part, his actuations are tantamount to a
willful refusal to perform a duty specifically required by law.
While the discretion of a court will not ordinarily be controlled by mandamus, where
such discretion can be legally exercised in only one way and it refuses to act,
mandamus will lie to compel the court to exercise it.
The general rule is that in the performance of an official duty or act involving
discretion, such official can only be directed by mandamus to act but not to act in one
way or the other. An exception to this rule is where there has been gross abuse of
discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority, in which case
the respondent can be ordered to act in a particular manner, especially where a
constitutional right has been violated.
While mandamus lies to compel a court to give due course to the appeal which it
has erroneously dismissed, mandamus will not lie to compel a court to dismiss the
appeal as the remedy is to assign such failure to dismiss as an error in the
course of the appeal.
The appellate court may deny a petition for mandamus if it is frivolous and intended
solely for delay.
Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of a contractual duty, especially if a
contract is disputed, and such mandamus suit cannot be converted into an ordinary
action for breach of contract.
Mandamus can be availed of only by the party who has direct legal interest in the
right sought to be enforced. However, if the question is one of public right and the
object of the mandamus suit is to procure the performance of a public duty, it is
sufficient to show that petitioner is a citizen even if he has no special interest.
Where the case involves only legal questions, the litigant need not exhaust all
administrative remedies before such judicial relief can be sought.
Sec. 4. When and where to file petition.
The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order or
resolution. In case a motion for consideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such
motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than 60 days counted
from notice of the denial of the motion.
If the petition relates to an or omission of a municipal trial court or of a
corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the RTC
exercising jurisdiction over the territorial areas as defined by the Supreme Court. It may
also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not
the same is in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction
If the petition involves an act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be
cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
In election cases involving an act or omission of a municipal or a regional
trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on
Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
The petitioner is not at complete liberty to file his petition in any of the above stated
courts just because they have concurrent original jurisdiction over the same. The
hierarchy of courts must be observed.
The Supreme Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the (1) redress desired
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or (2) where exceptional and compelling
circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of our
primary jurisdiction.
Sec. 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases.
When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of (1) a judge, (2) court, (3)
quasi-judicial agency, (4) tribunal, (5) corporation, (6) board, (7) officer or person,
the petitioner shall join as private respondent or respondents with such public
respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the
proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to
appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public
respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in
such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private
respondents only, and not against the judge, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, the
public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition
or pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public
respondents shall be included therein as nominal parties. However, unless
otherwise specifically directed by the court, they shall not appear or participate in the
proceedings therein.
The private respondent being an indispensable party, his non-inclusion would
render the petition for certiorari defective.
Sec. 6. Order to comment.
If the petition is sufficient in form and substance to justify such process, the court shall
issue an order requiring the respondent or respondents to comment on the
petition within 10 days from receipt of a copy thereof. Such (1) order shall be
served on the respondents in such a manner as the court may direct, together with (2)
a copy of the petition and (3) any annexes thereto.
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the
provisions of section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course thereto,
the court may require the respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to
dismiss, the petition. Thereafter, the court may require the filing if a reply and such
other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper.
In the petitions under this Rule filed in the RTC, no prior service of a copy thereof on
the respondent is required. On the other hand, pursuant to the second paragraph of
this section, in petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals, there must be proof of prior service of a copy of said petition on the
respondent, aside from the other requirements such as the contents and certifications
provided therefor.
Failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petitions.
Sec. 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief.
The court in which the petition is filed may (1) issue orders expediting the proceedings,
and it may also (2) grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary
injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings.
The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued,
enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding with the case.
The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within 10 days
from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a
temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its
expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case
may be a ground for an administrative charge.
Sec. 8. Proceedings after comment is filed.
After the comment or other pleadings required by the court are filed, or the time for the
filing thereof has expired, the court may (1) hear the case or (2) require the parties to
submit memoranda. If, after such hearing or filing of memoranda or upon the
expiration of the period for filing, the court finds that the allegations of the petition
are true, it shall render judgment for such relief to which the petitioner is entitled.
However, the court may dismiss the petition if it finds the same (1) patently
without merit or (2) prosecuted manifestly for delay, or (3) if the questions raised
therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. In such event, the court
may award in favor of the respondent treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and
counsel, in addition to subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions.
The Court may impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary
sanctions or measure in erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious
petitions for certiorari.
Sec. 9. Service and enforcement of order or judgment.
A certified copy of the judgment rendered in accordance with the last preceding
section shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person concerned in such manner as the court may direct, and
disobedience thereto shall be punished as contempt. An execution may issue for
any damages or costs awarded in accordance with section 1.
Where the higher court finds that the lower court was in error, ordinarily the
case is remanded to the lower court for further appropriate proceedings. However,
it may render judgment on the merits without remand of the case where the facts
revealed by the pleadings clearly show that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed
for.