CIVIL PROCEDURE

The docket and other lawful fees paid by the

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
 The rules on ordinary civil actions shall apply to special
civil actions insofar as they are not inconsistent with or may
supplement the rules governing the latter [Rule 1, Sec. 3]; an
action subject to special rules other than those applicable to
ordinary civil actions is what makes a civil action special;
special civil actions are also governed by ordinary rules but
subject to specifically prescribed rules [Rules 62 to 71]; the
provisions of Rule 16 on a motion to dismiss are applicable
in these actions whenever preliminary objections therein
may feasibly be invoked
 Commenced with a COMPLAINT in the case of
interpleader, expropriation, foreclosure of real estate
mortgage, partition, forcible entry and unlawful detainer; or
with a PETITION in a suit for declaratory relief, review of
adjudications of constitutional commissions, certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and contempt;
ordinary civil actions may be filed initially in an MTC or
RTC depending on jurisdictional amount while some special
civil actions can only be filed in an MTC (forcible entry and
unlawful detainer); some special civil actions cannot be
commenced in an MTC (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus)
 Writs of injunction, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo
warranto and habeas corpus issued by RTCs are enforceable
within their respective judicial regions [B.P. 129, Section
21]
 Venue is governed by the general rules on venue, except as
otherwise indicated in the particular rules for special civil
actions; three special civil actions are within the jurisdiction
of inferior courts: (1) interpleader, provided the amount
involved is within its jurisdiction [Makati Development
Corp. v. Tanjuatco (1969)]; (2) ejectment suits [Rule 70];
and (c) contempt [Rule 71]
INTERPLEADER [Rule 62]
DEFINED. A remedy whereby a person who has property in his
possession or has an obligation to render wholly or partially,
without claiming any right in both, comes to court and asks that the
defendants who have made conflicting claims upon the same
property or who consider themselves entitled to demand
compliance with the obligation be required to litigate among
themselves in order to determine who is entitled to the property or
payment or the obligation [Beltran v. PHHC, (1969)]
complainant, and costs and litigation expenses shall
constitute a lien or charge upon the subject matter of the
action, unless otherwise ordered by the court. [Section
7]
NOTE: An interpleader action must be brought within a
reasonable time after the dispute has arisen, otherwise it
may be barred by laches
(2) Court order requiring the conflicting claimants to
interplead with one another. If the interests of justice
so require, the court may direct that the subject matter
be paid or delivered to the court. [Section 2]
NOTE: There being no conflicting claims among the
defendants, their claims being separate and distinct
from each other, the complaint may be dismissed for
lack of cause of action
(3) Summons, copy of complaint and order served upon the
conflicting claimants. [Section 3]
(4) Each claimant shall file his answer within 15 days from
service of the summons, serving a copy thereof upon
each of the other conflicting claimants, who may file
their reply thereto. [Section 5]
(5) If claimant fails to plead within the time herein fixed,
the court may, on motion, declare him in default and
render judgment barring him from any claim in respect
to the subject matter.
(6) Within the time for filing an answer, each claimant may
file a motion to dismiss on the ground of: (a)
impropriety of the interpleader action, or (b) other
appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16
The period to file the answer shall be tolled.
(7) If the motion is denied, an answer may be filed within
the remaining period, in no case less than 5 days (from
notice of denial). [Section 4]
(8) The parties may file counterclaims, crossclaims, third-
party complaints and responsive pleadings thereto.
[Section 5]
(9) Pre-trial

PURPOSE. (1) To compel conflicting claimants to interplead and (10) Court shall determine conflicting claimants’ respective
litigate their several claims among themselves [Section 1]; (2) To rights and adjudicate their several claims. [Section 6]
protect a person against double vexation in respect of one liability
NOTE: The costs, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred
REQUISITES. (1) There must be two or more claimants with by the plaintiff in the action is recoverable from the
adverse or conflicting interests to a property in the custody or losing defendant and is found by the court to have
possession of the plaintiff; (2) The plaintiff has NO CLAIM upon caused the unnecessary litigation
the subject matter of the adverse claims, or if he has an interest at
all, such interest is NOT DISPUTED by the claimants; and (3) The
DECLARATORY RELIEFS AND SIMILAR REMEDIES
subject matter of the adverse claims must be one and the same.
[Rule 63]
FILING. Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject
WHO MAY FILE THE ACTION; AND WHEN. (1) a person
matter are or may be made against a person who claims no interest
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument;
in the subject matter or an interest which is not disputed by the
(2) a person whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order
claimants [Section 1]; cannot be availed of to resolve the issue of
or regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation
breach of undertakings made by defendants, which should be
[Section 1]; may be filed in the proper RTC [Section 1]; action not
resolved in an ordinary action for specific performance or other
within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, even if pure
reliefs; the definition of a cause of action requiring violation of a
questions of law are involved [Remotigue v. Osmeña (1967)]
right does not appear to be relevant to the special civil action of
interpleader and declaratory relief
PARTIES. (1) All persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected by the declaration [Section 2]; (2) If action
PROCEDURE:
involves the validity of a statute/executive order/regulation/other
governmental regulation, the Solicitor General shall be notified
(1) Complaint filed by the person against whom conflicting
[Section 3]; (3) If action involves the validity of a local
claims are or may be made.
government ordinance, the prosecutor/attorney of the local unit
involved, and the Solicitor General, shall be notified [Section 4]
Non-joinder of interested persons is not a jurisdictional
defect but persons not joined shall not be prejudiced in
their interests unless otherwise provided by the Rules
[Baguio Citizens Action v. City Council of Baguio
(1983)]; a third-party complaint is not available in a
declaratory relief action [Commission of Customs v.
Cloribel (1977)] but a compulsory counterclaim may be
set up [Visayan Packing v. Reparations Commission
(1987)]
REQUISITES OF AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF.
(1) Subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will,
contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance [Section 1];
(2) The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are
doubtful and require judicial construction [Santos v. Aquino
(1953)];
(3) No breach of the documents in question. [Reparations
Commission v. Northern Lines (1970)], otherwise, an ordinary
civil action is the remedy; the concept of a cause of action in
ordinary civil actions does not apply; if before the final
termination of the case, a breach or violation of an instrument
or a statute, etc. should take place, the action may be
converted into an ordinary action [Section 6]
(4) Actual justiciable controversy between persons; the issue
must be ripe for judicial determination, i.e. administrative
remedies have been exhausted [Velarde v. SJS (2004)]
(5) Adverse interests between the parties; not available for a
declaration of citizenship [Villa-Abrille v. Republic (1956)] or
the validity of a registration certificate [Obiles v. Republic
(1953)] as they are unilateral in nature and without conflicting
adverse interests
(6) Adequate relief is not available through other means or
other forms of action or proceedings [Ollada v. Central Bank
(1962)]; a court decision cannot be the subject of a declaratory
relief since there exists other remedies, i.e., appeal or a motion
for clarificatory judgment [Tanda v. Aldaya (1956)]
COURT MAY REFUSE TO MAKE JUDICIAL
DECLARATION: (1) Where a decision would not terminate the
uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action; or (2)
Where the declaration or construction is not necessary and proper
under the circumstances [Section 5]; this action is unavailable
where a judgment may be made only after a judicial investigation
of the issues
CONVERSION TO ORDINARY ACTION. (1) Before the final
termination of the case; (b) A breach or violation of an instrument
or a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation should take place; the parties shall be
allowed to file such pleadings as may be necessary or proper
[Section 6]
PROCEEDINGS CONSIDERED AS SIMILAR REMEDIES
[Section 1(2)], REQUIRING ADJUDICATION OF THE LEGAL
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES
(1) Reformation of an Instrument [Arts. 1359-1369, Civil
Code]. When, there having been a meeting of the minds
of the parties to a contract, their true intention is not
expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the
agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable
conduct or accident, one of the parties may ask for the
reformation of the instrument to the end that such true
intention may be expressed. If mistake, fraud, inequitable
conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the minds
of the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the
instrument but annulment of the contract. [Article 1359]
The procedure for the reformation of instrument shall be
governed by rules of court to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court. [Art.1369}
(2) Consolidation of Ownership. In case of real property, the
consolidation of ownership in the vendee by virtue of the
failure of the vendor to comply with the provisions of
Article 1616 shall not be recorded in the Registry of
Property without a judicial order, after the vendor has
been duly heard. [Article 1607, Civil Code]
(3) Quieting of Title to Real Property [Arts. 476-481, Civil
Code]. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property
or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact
invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may
be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action may
also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon
title to real property or any interest therein. [Article 476]
The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal of a
cloud therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court
as the Supreme Court shall promulgate. [Article 481]
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR
RESOLUTION OF THE COMELEC AND COA [Rule 64]
SCOPE. (1) Applicable only to judgments and final orders of the
COMELEC and COA [Section 1]; (2) Judgments/orders of the
Civil Service Commission are now reviewable by the Court of
Appeals under Rule 43, eliminating recourse to the Supreme Court
[R.A. No. 7902; SC Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95];
(3) An aggrieved party may bring the questioned judgment, etc.
directly to the SC on certiorari under Rule 65 [Section 2]; such
petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment,
etc. sought to be reviewed unless otherwise directed by the
Supreme Court [Section 8]
PROCEDURE:
(1) File a petition for review [Section 3] within 30 days from
notice of judgment/final order/resolution sought to be
reviewed the filing of a motion for reconsideration/new
trial with the constitutional commission interrupts the 30-
day period. If the motion is denied, aggrieved party may
file petition within remaining period, which shall not be
less than 5 days from notice of denial.
Petition is verified and accompanied by (annexes): (1) a
clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of
the subject judgment, etc.; (2) certified true copies of such
material portions of the record referred to in the petition;
(3) other documents relevant and pertinent to the petition;
(4) proof of service of a copy of the petition on the
Commission and the adverse party; (5) proof of the timely
payment of the docket and other lawful fees
In one original (properly marked) and four copies, unless
the case is referred to the Court en banc, in which event,
the parties shall file ten additional copies (containing plain
copies of all documents attached to the original copy of
the petition). [Section 5]
Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further
required, on voluntary basis for the first six months
following the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily
afterwards unless the period is extended, to submit,
simultaneously with their court-bound papers, soft copies
of the same and their annexes (the latter in PDF format)
 either by email to the Court’s e-mail address or by
compact disc (CD). This requirement is in preparation for
the eventual establishment of an e-filing paperless system
in the judiciary. [Efficient Use of Paper Rule, Section 5]
Contains [Section 5]: (1) name of aggrieved party
(petitioner); (2) respondents Commission concerned and
person(s) interested in sustaining the judgment a quo; (3)
facts and issues involved; (4) grounds and brief arguments
relied upon for review; (5) prayer for judgment annulling
or modifying the question judgment, etc. (6) material
dates showing that it was filed on time; and (7)
certification of non-forum shopping
Findings of fact of the Commission supported by
substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable;
failure to comply with foregoing requirements shall be a
sufficient ground for dismissal
(2) Order to Comment [Section 6]. If the SC finds the
petition sufficient in form and substance, it shall order the
respondents to file their comments on the petition within
10 days from notice thereof.
Grounds for the dismissal of a petition: (1) Insufficient in
form and substance; (2) Filed manifestly for delay; (3)
Questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further
proceedings
(3) Comments of Respondents [Section 7]; Requirements: (1)
Original copy with certified true copies of material
portions of the record as are referred to in the comment
and certified true copies of other supporting papers; (2)
One original (properly marked) and four copies, unless
the case is referred to the Court en banc, in which event,
the parties shall file ten additional copies (with plain
copies of all documents attached to the original)
Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further
required, on voluntary basis for the first six months
following the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily
afterwards unless the period is extended, to submit,
simultaneously with their court-bound papers, soft copies
of the same and their annexes (the latter in PDF format)
either by email to the Court’s e-mail address or by
compact disc (CD). This requirement is in preparation for
the eventual establishment of an e-filing paperless system
in the judiciary. [Efficient Use of Paper Rule, Section 5]
Copy of the comment shall be served on the petitioner.
(4) Decision [Section 9]. The case is deemed submitted for
decision upon: (1) Filing of the comments on the petition,
and such other pleadings or papers as may be required or
allowed; (2) Expiration of the period to file the pleadings;
except when the SC sets the case for oral argument or
requires parties to submit memoranda.
APPLICATION OF RULE 65 UNDER RULE 64; DISTINCTION
IN THE APPLICATION OF RULE 65 TO JUDGMENTS OF
THE COMELEC AND COA AND THE APPLICATION OF
RULE 65 TO OTHER TRIBUNALS, PERSONS AND
OFFICERS
(1) RULE 64 is directed only to the judgments, final orders or
resolutions of COMELEC and COA; RULE 65 is directed
to any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions
(2) In RULE 64, the petition is filed within 30 days from
notice of the judgment/order; In RULE 65, the petition is
filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment/order
(3) In RULE 64, the filing of a MR or a MNT if allowed,
interrupts the period for the filing of the petition for
certiorari, and 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 reckoned from the
notice of denial; in RULE 65, the period within which to
file the petition if the MR or MNT is denied is 60 days
from notice
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS [Rule 65]
CERTIORARI. The original action of certiorari is not a substitute
for appeal [Lobite v. Sundiam (1983)]; exceptions: (1) appeal is
not a speedy and adequate remedy [Salvadores v. Pajarillo (1947)];
(2) the orders were issued either in excess of or without
jurisdiction [Aguilar v. Tan (1970)]; (3) special considerations, i.e.,
public welfare or public policy [Jose v. Zulueta (1961)]; (4) the
order is a patent nullity [Marcelo v. De Guzman (1982)]; (5) the
decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations [St. Peter
Memorial Park v. Campos (1975)]; (6) when the broader interest of
justice so requires [Mendez v. CA (2012)]; (7) when the writs
issued are null and void [Mendez v. CA (2012)]; (8) when the
questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial
authority [Mendez v. CA (2012)]
The requirement in Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to
attach relevant pleadings to the petition is read in relation to
Section 3, Rule 46, which states that failure to comply with any of
the documentary requirements, such as the attachment of relevant
pleadings, “shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition.” [Radio Philippines Network v. Yap (2012)]; questions of
fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari, and only
established or admitted facts may be considered [Suarez v. NLRC
(1998)]; findings of fact of CA are not binding upon SC in an
original action for certiorari [Medran v. CA (1949)]; under Section
4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and as applied in Laguna Metts
Corporation, the general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be
filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or
resolution sought to be assailed, under exceptional circumstances,
however, and subject to the sound discretion of the Court, said
period may be extended [Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul (2012)]
PROHIBITION. 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 of
preliminary injunction; prohibition is the remedy where a motion
to dismiss is improperly denied [Enriquez v. Macadaeg (1949)]
MANDAMUS. A writ of mandamus will not issue to control the
exercise of official discretion or judgment, or to alter or review the
action taken in the proper exercise of the discretion of judgment,
for the writ cannot be used as a writ of error or other mode of
direct review; generally, 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, except
when there is gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or
palpable excess of authority [Kant Wong v. PCGG (1987)];
mandamus can be availed of only by the party who has direct legal
interest in the right sought to be enforced., but if the question is
one of public right, it is sufficient to show that the petitioner is a
citizen [Tanada v. Tuvera (1985)]
WHEN PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND/OR MANDAMUS IS PROPER
 GROUNDS (all three petitions require that “there is no
appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law”. In CERTIORARI, when any
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted: (1) without or in excess of its
jurisdiction; or (2) with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction [Section 1]; in
PROHIBITION, when the proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising
 judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, are (1)
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction; or (2) with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its
or his jurisdiction [Section 2]; in 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 [Section 3]
An act is made WITHOUT JURISDICTION if the
respondent does not have the legal power to determine the
case; it is made IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION if the
respondent has the legal power to determine the case but
oversteps such power; there is GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION if the respondent has the legal power to
determine the case but acts in a capricious, whimsical,
arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of his judgment
A remedy is 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
[Silvestre v. Torres (1946)]
 PURPOSE. In CERTIORARI, to correct an act performed
by the respondent; in PROHIBITION, to prevent the
commission or carrying out of an act; and in MANDAMUS,
to compel the performance of the act desired
 ACT SOUGHT TO BE CONTROLLED. Discretionary acts
in CERTIORARI; discretionary and ministerial acts in
PROHIBITION; ministerial acts in MANDAMUS
 PETITIONER in all three actions is the aggrieved person
 RESPONDENT. In CERTIORARI, those exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions; in PROHIBITION, those
exercising judicial or non-judicial functions; in
MANDAMUS, those exercising judicial and/or non-judicial
functions
When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a
judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation,
board, 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. xxx
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. [Section 5]
FORM OF PETITION (all three petitions are required to be
verified and to allege the facts with certainty. In CERTIORARI,
petition is accompanied by a certified true copy of the subject
judgment, etc., copies of all relevant pleadings and documents, and
a certification of non-forum shopping; in PROHIBITION, it is
accompanied by a certified true copy of the subject judgment, etc.,
copies of all relevant pleadings and documents, and a certification
of non-forum shopping, in MANDAMUS, petition contains a
certification of non-forum shopping
RELIEF SOUGHT. In CERTIORARI, the prayer is that judgment
be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, etc., and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice
may require; in PROHIBITION, that 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; in MANDAMUS,
that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or 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
PROCEDURE:
(1) FILING THE PETITION. It is filed not later than 60
days from notice of judgment/order/resolution; if a motion
for reconsideration/new trial is filed, the 60-day period
shall be counted from notice of the denial of the motion;
extension may be granted for compelling reasons, not
exceeding 15 days [Section 4]
It is filed with the: (a) Supreme Court; (b) Court of
Appeals; if it involves the acts of a quasi-judicial agency,
the petition shall be filed only in the CA, unless otherwise
provided by law or the Rules; (c) Regional Trial Court, if
it relates to acts/omissions of a lower
court/corporation/board/officer/person; (d)
Sandiganbayan, if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
(2) 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(s) to comment on
the petition within 10 days from receipt of a copy thereof;
such order shall be served on the respondents in such
manner as the court may direct, together with a copy of
the petition and any annexes thereto [Section 6]
(3) HEARING OR MEMORANDA. After the comment or
other pleadings required by the court are filed, or the time
for the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear the
case or require the parties to submit memoranda [Section
8]
(4) JUDGMENT. If after such hearing or submission of
memoranda or the expiration of the period for the filing
thereof, the court finds that the allegations of the petition
are true, it shall render judgment for the relief prayed for
or to which the petitioner is entitled; the court, however,
may dismiss the petition if it finds the same to be patently
without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the
questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration [Section 8]
(5) SERVICE AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER OR
JUDGMENT. A certified copy of the judgment rendered
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 of Rule 39 [Section 9]
CERTIORARI vs. APPEAL (BY CERTIORARI)
CERTIORARI is proper to correct errors of jurisdiction
committed by lower courts, grave abuse of discretion which is
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction; APPEAL is proper where
error is not one of jurisdiction but an error of law or fact which
is a mistake of judgment
CERTIORARI invokes the original jurisdiction of the court;
APPEAL invokes the appellate jurisdiction of the court
CERTIORARI is filed within 60 days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution; APPEAL is filed within the
period of appeal
CERTIORARI is an original and independent action;
APPEAL is a continuation of the original case
CERTIORARI impleads the tribunal, court, board or officer;
the parties to an APPEAL are the original parties of the case
PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS vs. INJUNCTION
 PROHIBITION is directed to the court or tribunal directing it
to refrain from the performance of acts which it has no
jurisdiction to perform; INJUNCTION is directed against a
party to the action
MANDAMUS is directed against a tribunal, corporation board
or officer; INJUNCTION is directed against a litigant
The purpose of MANDAMUS is for the tribunal, corporation,
board or officer to perform a ministerial and legal duty; in
INJUNCTION, it is for the defendant either to refrain from an
act or to perform not necessarily a legal and ministerial duty
In MANDAMUS, the respondent is sought to perform a
positive legal duty and not to undo what has been done; in
INJUNCTION, it is to prevent an act of a party, or to maintain
the status quo between the parties
FILING OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE
FILING THE PETITION. As a general rule, a motion for
reconsideration must first be availed of before certiorari, to enable
the lower court to correct its mistakes without the intervention of
the higher courts. [BA Finance v. Pineda (1982)]; EXCEPTIONS:
(1) the order is a patent nullity [Vigan Elec. Light v. Public Service
Commission (1964)]; (2) the questions raised in the certiorari have
been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court [Fortich-
Celdran v. Celdran (1967)] or are the same as those raised and
passed upon in the lower court [Pajo v. Ago (1960)]; (3) there is an
urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and delay would
prejudice the interests of the government [Vivo v.Cloribel (1966)];
(4) the MR would be useless [People v. Palacio (1960)]; (5) the
petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme
urgency for relief [Luzon Surety v. Marbella (1960)] (6) the
proceeding was ex parte in which the petitioner had no opportunity
to object [Republic v. Maglanoc (1963)]; and, (7) the issue raised
is purely a question of law or where the public interest is involved
[PALEA v. PAL (1982)]
RELIEFS TO THE PETITIONER. A petitioner may be entitled
to: (1) Injunctive relief; the Court may issue orders expediting the
proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or
a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of
the parties [Section 7]; (2) Incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require [Sections 1 and 2]; (3) Other reliefs prayed for or to which
the petitioner is entitled [Section 8]
QUO WARRANTO [Rule 66]
Quo warranto is the remedy to try disputes with respect to the title
to a public office; it is commenced by a verified petition for the
usurpation of a public office, position or franchise [Section 1]l
when there is no dispute as to who has the title to the public office
but the adverse party, without lawful ground, prevents the rightful
occupant from assuming the office, mandamus is the remedy
against the usurper [Lota v. CA (1961)]; the action may be given
precedence over any other civil matter pending in the court
[Section 8]
GOVERNMENT COMMENCES AN ACTION AGAINST
INDIVIDUALS
(1) By the Government, brought in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines, against:
(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully
holds or exercises a public office, position or
franchise
(b) A public officer who does not or suffers an act
which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground
for the forfeiture of his office
(c) An association which acts as a corporation within
the Philippines without being legally incorporated or
without lawful authority so to act [Section 1]
(2) Solicitor General or public prosecutor MUST commence an
action:
(a) When directed by the President of the Philippines
(b) When upon complaint or otherwise, he has good
reason to believe that any case specified in Sec. 1 can
be established by proof [Section 2]
(3) Solicitor General or public prosecutor MAY commence an
action:
(a) With permission of the court
(b) At the request and upon the relation of another
person
(c) Officer bringing such action may first require an
indemnity for the expenses and costs of the action in
an amount approved by and deposited in court
[Section 3]
INDIVIDUAL MAY COMMENCE AN ACTION. By a person
claiming to be entitled to a public office or position, brought in his
own name, against another who usurped or unlawfully held or
exercised such public office or position [Section 5]; he does not
have to secure the intervention of the Solicitor General or the
prosecutor, nor does he have to obtain prior leave of court
JUDGMENT IN QUO WARRANTO ACTION. When the
respondent is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or
unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position, or
franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such respondent be
ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner or
relator recover his costs [Section 9]
RIGHTS OF A PERSON ADJUDGED ENTITLED TO A
PUBLIC OFFICE. If judgment be rendered in favor of the person
averred in the complaint to be entitled to the public office, he may,
after taking the oath of office and executing any official bond
required by law, take upon himself the execution of the office, and
may immediately thereafter demand of the respondent all the
books and papers in the respondent's custody or control
appertaining to the office to which the judgment relates; the person
adjudged entitled to the office may also bring an action against the
respondent to recover the damages sustained by reason of the
usurpation [Section 10]
QUO WARRANTO IN RULE 66 vs. THAT IN THE OMNIBUS
ELECTION CODE [Section 253]
In RULE 66, the petition is filed by the Solicitor General or a
public prosecutor in behalf of the Republic or an individual in
proper cases; In the CODE, it is filed by any voter
In RULE 66, the case is filed by the Solicitor General in the RTC
of Manila, CA or SC, otherwise, in the RTC where the respondent
resides, CA or SC [Section 7]; in the CODE, the suit is filed with
the COMELEC if against the election of a member of Congress,
Regional, Provincial or City official, or with the appropriate RTC
or MTC, if against a municipal or barangay officer
In RULE 66, the action should be filed within 1 year from ouster,
or from the time the right to the position arose [Section 11]; In the
CODE, within 10 days after the proclamation of results
In RULE 66, it is instituted against a person, who usurps, intrudes
into or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or
franchise, or a public officer, who does or suffers an act which, by
provision of law, constitutes a ground for forfeiture of office; in the
CODE, it is grounded on ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic