RULE 65

CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

JURISDICTION

 The following have jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus:

1. Regional Trial Court

2. Court of Appeals
3. Supreme Court
4. Sandiganbayan; &
5. COMELEC.

 The RTC, CA and SC have original and concurrent jurisdiction over certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus actions.
o Concurrence of jurisdiction however does not give a party unbridled freedom to choose
the venue of his action lest he ran afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
o Under said doctrine, petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition against first-level courts should be filed with the RTC. Those against the RTC
shall be filed with the CA, before resort may be had before the SC.
 The Sandiganbayan under Sec. 2 RA No. 10660, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over
petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over
petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or those that may arise from ECs 1,2,14&
14-a, provided the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the SC.
 In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or regional trial court, the petition
shall be filed exclusively with the COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

SCOPE OF ENFORCEABILITY OF THE WRIT

 RTCs have original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus, and injunction
o The writs issued by RTCs are enforceable in any part of their respective regions, or those
provided under sec. 13 of BP 129.
 (Board of trustees of GSIS vs. Velasco) the petition for prohibition filed was a personal action
because it did not affect the title to, or possession of real property or interest therein. It may be
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside, or where the
defendant or any principal defendants reside, at the election of the plaintiff.
 RULE 65 vs RULE 45 (Petition for certiorari vs. petition for review on certiorari)

 Petition for certiorari should only be availed of when any tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction; and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
o Said to be exercising judicial function when he has the power to determine what the law
is and what the legal rights f the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these
questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.
o Quasi judicial function is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc. of public
administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence
of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official
action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.
o Necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or
property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy
ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and
authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending
parties.
o Grave abuse of discretion: the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined
or to act in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercise in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility.
 Petition for certiorari and prohibition are availed of to question judicial, quasi-judicial and
mandatory acts.
 A petition for certiorari seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction, an error of jurisdiction is one where
the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is
correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
o while a petition for review on certiorari seeks to correct errors of judgment committed
by the court. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction and which error is reviewable only by appeal.
o Where a court has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on
all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction, consequently, all
errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment.
 In other words, when the court has jurisdiction over the case and the person of
the defendant, any mistake in the application of the law and the appreciation of
evidence committed by a court may be corrected only by appeal.
 Rulings of the trial court on procedural questions and on admissibility of
evidence during the course of a trial are interlocutory in nature and may
not be subject of a separate appeal or review on certiorari.
 o They must be assigned as errors and reviewed in the appeal
properly taken from the decision rendered by the trial court on
the merits of the case.
 Errors of judgment include

1. errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings

2. any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of
judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari/

 Rule 45 - a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 is an appeal to the SC that generally
raises questions of law. Continuation of appellate process over the original case.
o The findings of fact of the CA are generally deemed conclusive and the SC is not duty-
bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the
proceedings below. Except:

1. When the factual findings of the CA and the trial court are contradictory;
2. When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or
conjectures;
3. When the inference made by the CA from its findings of facts is manifestly
mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
4. When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts
5. When the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the
case, and such findings are contrary to the admission of both appellant and
appellee;
6. When the judgment of the CA is premised on a misapprehension of facts;
7. When the CA fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered,
will justify a different conclusion;
8. When the findings off facts are themselves conflicting;
9. When the findings of facts are conclusions without citation of the specific
evidence on which they are based’;
10. When the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence
but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record;
11. In petitions for Issuance of Writ of Amparo;
12. Petitions for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Data
13. Petitions for Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan; &
14. Petitions for Issuance of Writ of Continuing Mandamus

 Rule 65 - Special civil action certiorari is a remedy of last resort, available only to raise
jurisdictional issues when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law

Cases when petition for certiorari allowed despite existence/availability of appeal: (Philippine
Health Insurance corp. vs. COA/ DENR union vs ABAD)

o Where the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy
o Where the orders were also issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction;
o For certain special considerations, as public welfare or public policy;
o Where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution as, in
case of acquittal, there could be no remedy;
o Where the order is a patent nullity;
o Where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations.

 Rule 65 - A writ of certiorari may be issued against any branch or instrumentality of the
government, regardless of whether they are exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, as long as
there was a grave abuse of discretion amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
branch or instrumentality of the government.
 Rule 65 - The essential requisites for a petition for certiorari under rule 65 are:

1. The writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial function;
2. Such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; &
3. There us bi appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

 Rule 65 – a special civil action for certiorari lies only when there is no appeal nor any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage
Bank vs. CA).

Sec. 1, rule 41 states that an aggrieved party may file the SCA under rule 65 as a remedy where no
appeal is available in the following circumstances:

1. an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration

2. an order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
3. an interlocutory order
4. an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal
5. an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise
on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent
6. an order of execution
 7. a judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims,
counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending,
unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; &
8. an order dismissing an action without prejudice.

 The remedy against a decision rendered by the RTC in an action filed under rule 65 is ordinary
appeal under rule 41.
o By filing a notice of appeal with the RTC, since the action under rule 65 is an original
action. However, instead of filing with the CA an appellant’s brief within 45 days from
receipt of notice of the transmittal of records to the CA, a memorandum shall be filed,
within a non-extendible period of 30 days from receipts of said notice.
 the remedy against a decision rendered by the CA in an action filed under rule 65 is by petition
for review on certiorari under rule 45.

PETITIONER FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS SHOULD NOT BE RESORTED TO WHEN
THERE ARE OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDIES; EXCEPTION

 mere existence of grave abuse of discretion is not sufficient to warrant availment of the original
actions under rule 65, there must also be the absence of an appeal or other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy under the ordinary course of law, otherwise, petition under rule 65 will not
prosper.
o Remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if

Supreme Court May Treat a Petition For Certiorari As A Petition For Review On Certiorari & Vice Versa

 In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice,
which otherwise may be miscarried because of a rigid and formalistic adherence to such rules.
 The SC has, on appropriate occasions, treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on
certiorari, particularly when:

1. The petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period to file a petition for
review on certiorari (filed within the 15-day reglementary period for filing a petition for
review on certiorari under rule 45);
2. That the petition avers error of judgment; &
3. When there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules and to do so would serve
the higher ends of justice.

 The SC found that the resolutions denying the prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction were interlocutory orders and such, the proper remedy should
 have been to file a petition for certiorari under rule 65, and not petition for review on certiorari
under rule 45.
 Note however that while a petition for certiorari under rule 65 may be treated as having been
filed under rule 45 to serve the higher interest of justice, the same cannot be done when the
petition is filed beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review and without
offering any reason therefor (15 days).
o The period for filing a petition for certiorari is 60 days from notice of the assailed
decision or order. While a petition for review on certiorari should be filed within 15
days, subject to an extension of 30 days, provided that the docket and lawful fees are
paid upon filing the said motion.
o If petition for certiorari, which is being asked to be treated as a petition for review, is
filed on the 60th day from notice of the assailed decision or final order, the reglementary
period for filing an appeal under rule 45 would have already lapsed, an as such, the
petition for certiorari can no longer be entertained as a petition for review.
 Why? There is no more decision or final order that may be appealed from since
the same would have become final and executory, and would be immutable.
 Under doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable,
and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification
is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether
it be made y the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the
land.

o

WHEN PETITIONS UNDER RULE 65 ARE CONSIDERED AS PROHIBITED PLEADINGS

 Petitions for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by any
court are prohibited pleadings under the Rules of Procedure for small claims cases, rules of
summary procedure, rule on writ of amparo, and rule on writ of habeas data.
o While it is prohibited to avail of a petition for certiorari against any interlocutory order
issued by the court in small claims cases, the SC ruled that the remedy of an aggrieved
party against a final and unappealable judgment in a small claims case is a petition for
certiorari under rule 65.
o EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE WHERE THERE IS NO
APPEAL OR ANY OTHER PLAIN SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF LAW, AS IN THE CASE OF FINAL, EXECUTORY AND UNAPPEALABLE
JUDGMENTS IN SMALL CLAIMS CASES.
 Prohibited pleadings/petitions under Rule 65:
1. To assail the denial of affirmative defenses, instead, the denial should be among the matter
raised on appeal after judgment on the merits;
2. To assal the motu proprio order of the court to submit the case for judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment after pre-trial;
3. To assail the order denying the demurrer to evidence before judgment;
 4. To assail any action of the couret on a motiuon for judgment on the pleadings; &
5. To assail any action of the court on a motion for summary judgment.
