G.R.No.

200903 July 22, 2014

Facts:

On March 23, 2012, the petitioners (KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP, INC.,

represented by its Vice-President, CARLITO BADION, CORAZON DE JESUS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, represented by its President, ARNOLD REPIQUE, FERNANDO SEVILLA as
President of Samahang Pamata sa Kapatirang Kristiyano, ESTRELIETA BAGASBAS, JOCY LOPEZ,
ELVIRA VIDOL, and DELIA FRA YRES) directly filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus before
the Court, seeking to compel the respondents (JESSIE ROBREDO, in his capacity as Secretary,
Department of Interior and Local Government, Hon. GUIA GOMEZ, in her capacity as MAYOR OF THE
CITY. OF SAN JUAN, Hon. HERBERT BAUTISTA, in his capacity as the MAYOR OF QUEZON
CITY, Hon. JOHN REY TIANGCO, in his capacity as MAYOR OF NAVOTAS CITY, and the
GENERAL MANAGER of the NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY).

The petitioners further allege that the respondents have previously used violence in evictions and
demolitions, in violation of Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution. The petitioners assert that Sections 28 (a)
and (b) of RA 7279 impair their constitutional right to due process by permitting evictions and
demolitions without a court order. They point out that the 1987 Constitution's Section 6, Article 3
specifically bans the prohibition of one's right to abode unless a court order is in place.

Issues:

There are two issues in the case. The first issue is that whether the petition should be dismissed for
serious procedural defects. Under the first issue is a two (2) sub issues; (whether the petitioners violated
the principle of hierarchy of courts and whether the petitioners correctly availed themselves of a petition
for prohibition and mandamus). The second issue is that whether the section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279
are violative of Sections 1 and 6, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitutions.

Rulings:

Yes, the petition has been dismissed.

 Yes, the petitioners breached or violated the principle of judicial hierarchy because they filed
the petition directly with the court and they also appear to have overlooked the fact that the Supreme
Court is a court of last resort rather than a court of first instance. The petitioners have unduly taxed the
Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to matters within the exclusive jurisdiction and that
causes overcrowding of the Court’s docket.

No, the petitioners wrongly availed themselves of a petition for prohibition and mandamus.
They also seems to have forgotten that a writ of prohibition only lies against the tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person’s exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. A petition for
mandamus is merely directed against the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person who unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station
or who unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled.

Yes, the petitioners seek to prohibit the respondents from implementing Section 28 (a) and (b)
of RA 7279 without a prior court order of eviction and/or demolition. The activities complained of are
clearly outside the scope of a petition for prohibition and mandamus, according to this provision. The
usage of the permissive word "may" signifies that the public respondents have discretion when it comes to
carrying out their responsibility to carry out evictions and/or demolitions. And also the resolution of the
constitutionality of Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 is not the lis mota of the case. The court therefore
conclude that the petitioner fail to compellingly show the necessity of examining the constitutionality of
Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 in the light sections 1 and 6, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution. The
petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations that the public respondents gravely abused their
discretion in implementing Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279. Instead, they merely imputed jurisdictional
abuse to the public respondents through general averments in their pleading, but without any basis to
support their claim.
G.R.No.L-4254 September 26, 1951

Facts:

Issues:

Whether Mejoff should be release from prison pending his deportation.

Rulings: