REMEDIAL LAW Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions Dean Jess Zachael B. Espejo, LL.M. RULE 65 CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS PROCEDURAL PECULIARITIES CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS COMPARED CE PROTON MANDAMU As to the nature of | Corrective, as it Preventive, as it Compulsory, as it the remedy annuls or modifies | requires a tribunal, | requires a tribunal the proceedings ofa | board or officer to. _| board or officer to act, tribunal, board or —_| desist from to prevent a failure of officer, continuing with the _| justice from delay or commission of an act. | refusal to act perceived to be illegal ‘As to what acts are | Discretionary acts | Discretionary and | Ministerial acts covered ministerial acts ‘As to what errors | That the tribunal, board or officer has acted _| That the tribunal, are alleged in the _| without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or | board or officer petition with grave abuse of discretion amounting to | unlawfully neglected lack or excess of jurisdiction the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law or unlawfully excluded another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office Common allegation | That there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Section 4. When and where to file the petition. ~ The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area 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 an 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. Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 ~ Procedural Peculiarities - Page 1 of 19In election cases involving an act or an 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. WHEN TO FILE PETITIONS Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, a petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. As previously discussed, a motion for reconsideration is generally considered as a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that is a condition sine gua non to the filing of the petitions governed by Rule 65 (see PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION versus GIDWANI, G.R. No. 234616, June 20, 2018). ‘The Supreme Court, in DE LOS SANTOS versus COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 147912, April 26, 2006, described the 60-day period as “reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over and to prepare a petition asserting grave abuse of discretion by a lower court.” The Court further noted that the period was specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of the parties to a speedy disposition of their case. MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION Section 4 of Rule 66, prior to its amendment by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, used to contain a paragraph which stated that “(n)o extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.” Thus, by direct provision of the former Section 4, it used to be that, if there was a compelling reason, a party seeking to file a petition under Rule 65 may be given an extension of time to file the petition of not more than 15 days. ‘Subsequently, in LAGUNA METTS CORPORATION versus COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 185220, July 27, 2009, the Supreme Court noted that “(w)hile the proper courts previously had discretion to extend the period for filing a petition for certiorari beyond the 60-day period, the amendments to Rule 65 under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC disallowed extensions of time to file a petition for certiorari with the deletion of the paragraph that previously permitted such extensions.” Hence, if the Supreme Court intended to retain the authority of the proper courts to grant extensions, the paragraph providing for such authority would have been preserved. The Supreme Court held that the removal of such paragraph from Section 4 by A.M. No, 07-7-12-SC simply meant that there can no longer be any extension of the 60-day, rationalizing that the deletion was essentially to prevent the use or abuse of the petition to delay a case or even defeat the ends of justice. Thus, petitions under Rule 65 must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. Less than a year after Laguna Metts, the Supreme Court, in DOMDOM versus THIRD AND FIFTH DIVISIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24, 2010, made a contrary pronouncement, as follows: That no mention is made in the above-quoted amended Section 4 of Rule 65 of a motion for extension, unlike in the previous formulation, does not make the filing of such pleading absolutely prohibited. If such were the intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been reworded to state that "no extension of time to file the petition shall be granted.” Absent such a prohibition, motions for extension are allowed, subject to the Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65~ Procedural Peculiarities - Page 2 of 19Court's sound discretion. The present petition may thus be allowed, having been filed within the extension sought and, at all events, given its merits. ‘Then, in REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES versus ST. VINCENT DE PAUL COLLEGES, INC., G.R. No. 192908, August 22, 2012, the Supreme Court harmonized Laguna Metts and Domdom, by essentially describing the former the general rule and the latter its exception. The Court held: What seems to be a "conflict” is actually more apparent than real. A reading of the foregoing rulings leads to the simple conclusion that Laguna Metts Corporation involves a strict application of the general rule that petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60) days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. Domdom, on the other hand, relaxed the rule and allowed an extension of the sixty (60)-day period subject to the Court's sound discretion, In several subsequent cases, the Supreme Court fleshed out the rule and its exceptions more fully. One such case is: THENAMARIS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 191215, February 3, 2014 The general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. Under exceptional cases, the 60-day period may be extended subject to the court's sound discretion. The deletion of the provisions in Rule 65 pertaining to extension of time did not make the filing of such pleading absolutely prohibited. XXX Absent such a prohibition, motions for extension are allowed, subject to the court's sound discretion. There are recognized exceptions to strict observance, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. A motion for extension of time must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended; otherwise, the same is of no effect since there would no longer be any period to extend, and the assailed judgment or order will have become final and executory. Additionally, there should be an effort on the part of the litigant invoking liberality to satisfactorily explain why he or she was unable to abide by the rules. Here, the reason offered for availing of the motion for extension is the heavy workload of private respondent's counsel, which is hardly a compelling or meritorious reason. Time and again, we have held that the excuse of heavy workload is relative and often self-serving. Standing alone, it is not a sufficient reason to deviate from the 60-day rule. WHERE 0 FILE PETITIONS, Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 — Procedural Peculiarities - Page 3 of 19As to where the petitions should be filed, Section 4 is quite categorical. It provides that if the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area 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 an 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 an 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. It must be noted that, as provided by no less than the 1987 Constitution, specifically Article VII, Section 5(1) thereof, the Supreme Court has the power to exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue these extraordinary writs (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES versus SERENO, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018). However, it seems that, as a general rule, by virtue of the amendment introduced by AM. No. 07-7-12-SC to Section 4 of Rule 65, a petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus may not be filed directly with the Supreme Court anymore. This is in consonance with the doctrine of judicial hierarchy which postulates that the Supreme Court should be a court of last resort and that direct recourse to it is abhorred. RULE 65 PETITIONS AGAINST QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME versus NLRC G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998 Alll references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 12910 supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired. ‘The decision of the NLRC may be reviewed by the CA through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It is not a substitute for an appeal that was devised to circumvent the absence of a statutory basis for the remedy of appeal of NLRC decisions. It is not a means to review the entire decision of the NLRC for reversible errors on questions of fact and law (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK versus GREGORIO, G.R. No. 194944, Sept. 18, 2017). Certiorari will issue to correet errors of jurisdiction and not mere errors of judgment, particularly in the findings or conclusions of the quasi-judicial tribunals (such as the NLRC). Accordingly, when a petition for certiorari is filed, the judicial inquiry should be limited to the issue of whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction (GABRIEL versus PETRON CORPORATION, G.R. No. 194575, April 11, 2018). BANCO FILIPINO versus BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS G.R. No. 200678, June 04, 2018 Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 — Procedural Peculiarities - Page 4 of 19Petitions for certiorari involving acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. As previously discussed, respondent Bangko Sentral exercises a myriad of functions, including those that may not be necessarily exercised by a quasi-judicial agency. It is settled, however, that it exercises its quasi judicial functions through respondent Monetary Board. Any ‘petition for certiorari against an act or omission of Bangko Sentral, when it acts through the Monetary Board, must be filed with the Court of Appeals. Thus, this Court in Vivas versus Monetary Board and Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, held that the proper remedy to question a resolution of the Monetary Board is through a petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not err in dismissing the case before the Regional Trial Court since the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the Petition for Certiorari filed by ‘petitioner against respondents. SO versus PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION G.R. No. 230020, March 19, 2018 Petitioner So opened an account with the Cooperative Rural Bank Bulacan (CRBB) on April 17, 2013, amounting to P300,000.00, for which he was assigned the Special Incentive Savings Account (SISA) No. 05-15712-1. On the same year, however, petitioner learned that CRBB closed its operations and was placed under Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation's (PDIC's) receivership. This prompted petitioner, together with other depositors, to file an insurance claim with the PDIC on November 8, 2013. Acting upon such claim, PDIC sent a letter/notice dated November 22, 2013, requiring petitioner to submit additional documents, which petitioner averred of having complied with. ‘Upon investigation, the PDIC found that petitioner's account originated from and was funded by the proceeds of a terminated SISA (mother account), jointly owned by a certain Reyes family. Thus, based on the determination that petitioner's ‘account was among the product of the splitting of the said mother account which is prohibited by law, PDIC denied petitioner's claim for payment of deposit insurance. Petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration, which was likewise denied by the PDIC on January 6, 2016. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). ‘The RTC dismissed his petition, declaring that, pursuant to its Charter (RA 3591), PDIC is empowered to determine and pass upon the validity of the insurance deposits claims. As such, when it rules on such claims, it is exercising a quasi- judicial function. The RTC held that petitioner's remedy to the dismissal of his claim was to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Section 4, Rule 65, stating that if the petition involves the acts or omissions of a quasi- judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or the rules, it shall be filed in ‘and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals (CA). ISSUE: — Does the RTC have jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65, assailing the PDIC's denial of a deposit insurance claim? RULING: NO. PDIC was created under RA 3591 as an insurer of deposits in all banks entitled to the benefits of insurance under the said Act to promote and safeguard the interests Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65— Procedural Peculiarities - Page 5 of 19of the depositing public. As such, PDIC has the duty and authority to determine the validity of and grant or deny deposit insurance claims. XXX Further, it bears stressing that as stated in Section 4(f) of its Charter, as amended, PDIC's action, such as denying a deposit insurance claim, is considered as final and executory and may be reviewed by the court only through a petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. Considering the foregoing, the legislative intent in creating the PDIC as a quasi- judicial agency is clearly manifest. Thus, the legislative intent in ereating PDIC as a quasi-judicial agency is clearly manifest. Indeed, PDIC exercises judicial discretion and judgment in determining whether a claimant is entitled to a deposit insurance elaim, which determination results from its investigation of facts and weighing of evidence presented before it. Noteworthy also is the fact that the law considers PDIC's action as final and exeewtory and may be reviewed only on the ground of grave abuse of diseretion. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC provides that if the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial ageney, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. Clearly, a petition for certiorari, questioning the PDIC’s denial of a deposit insurance claim should be filed before the CA, not the RTC. DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY ‘The doctrine of hierarchy of courts requires that recourse must first be made to the lower- ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over __ petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. While this jurisdiction is shared with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts, a direct invocation of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is allowed when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and especially set out in the petition (SPARK versus QUEZON CITY, G.R. No. 22442, August 8, 2017). The hierarchy of courts serves as the general determinant of the appropriate forum for such petitions (TRILLANES IV versus CASTILLO-MARIGOMEN, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018). ‘The Supreme Court en banc, in GIOS-SAMAR, INC., versus DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019, in undoubtedly its most instructive and comprehensive discussion of the doctrine to date, declared that “(he 1987 Constitution and the Rules of Court promulgated, pursuant to its provisions, granted us original jurisdiction over certain cases. In some instances, this jurisdiction is shared with Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and the Court of Appeals (CA). However, litigants do not have unfettered discretion to invoke the Court's original jurisdiction. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that, direct recourse to this Court is allowed only to resolve questions of law, notwithstanding the invocation of paramount or transcendental importance of the action. This doctrine is not mere policy, rather, it is a constitutional filtering mechanism designed to enable the Court to focus on the more fundamental and essential tasks assigned to it by the highest law of the land.” EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65— Procedural Peculiarities - Page 6 of 19SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION versus DSWD G.R. No. 199669, April 25, 2017 It is well to remember that “the judicial hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. It generally applies to cases involving warring factual allegations. For this reason, litigants are required to [refer] to the trial courts at the first instance to determine the truth or falsity of these contending allegations on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Cases which depend on disputed facts for decision cannot be brought immediately before appellate courts as they are not triers of facts. Therefore, a strict application of the rule of hierarchy of courts is not necessary when the cases brought before the appellate courts do not involve factual but legal questions." Moreover, the principle of hierarchy of courts may be set aside for special and important reasons, such as when dictated by public welfare and ' the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice. Thus, when based on the good judgment of the court, the urgeney and significance of the issues presented calls for its intervention, it should not hesitate to exercise its duty to resolve. ERNESTO DY versus BIBAT- PALAMOS, G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013 Under the principle of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse to this Court is improper because the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the overcrowding of its docket. Nonetheless, the invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition, such as (1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case. VALMORES versus ACHACOSO. G.R. No. 217453, July 19, 2017 Under Rule 65 of the Rules, a petition for mandamus is directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person who unlawfully neglects the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled. If the petition relates to an act or omission of a board, officer, or person, the same must be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as may be defined by the Court. In the case at bench, petitioner Valmores questions the acts of respondents in their capacities as Dean and faculty member of MSU-College of Medicine. As such, by directly filing the Petition with the Court instead of the proper regional trial court, as required by the Rules, petitioner Valmores was in error. Strict adherence to the judicial hierarchy of courts has been a longstanding policy of the courts in determining the appropriate forum for initiatory actions. While this Court has concurrent Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 ~ Procedural Peculiarities - Page 7 of 19jurisdiction with the inferior courts to issue corrective writs of certiorari, prohibition, ‘and mandamus, a party's choice of forum is by no means absolute. Needless to say, however, such rule is not without exception. Recently, in Maza v. Turla, the Court emphasized that it possesses full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume Jurisdiction over petitions filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues involved in the dispute. Citing The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, the Court held therein that a direct resort is allowed in the following instances, inter alia: (i) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time; (ii) when the questions involved are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice; and (iii) when the circumstances require an urgent resolution. 'TRILLANES IV versus CASTILLO-MARIGOMEN G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018 FACTS: A complaint for damages was filed by private respondent Antonio Tiu_ against petitioner Senator Antonio Trillanes IV. The complaint was filed as an offshoot of the Senate investigation on the alleged P1.601 Billion overpricing of the new 11 storey Makati City Hall If Parking Building. It appears that, during media interviews at the Senate, particularly during gaps and breaks in the plenary hearings as well as committee hearings, the senator expressed his opinion that based on his office's review of the documents, private respondent appears to be a “front” or "nominee" or is acting as a "dummy" of the actual and beneficial owner of the estate, Vice President Binay. Tiu alleged that the senator's defamatory statements before the media from October 8 to 14, 2014, specifically his repeated accusations that he is a mere "dummy" of VP Binay, besmirched his reputation, and caused him sleepless nights, wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and social humiliation. In his answer, Trillanes argued, by way of affirmative defenses, that his statements are protected by his constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and freedom of expression and of the press and that his statements, having been made in the course of the performance of his duties as a Senator, are covered by his parliamentary immunity under Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. The public respondent, Judge Castillo-Marigomen, denied Trillanes’ prayer to dismiss the complaint based on his affirmative defenses as well the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner subsequently filed the a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing public respondent's orders on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In justifying his direct recourse to the Court, petitioner alleges that there is a clear threat to his parliamentary immunity as well as his rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and he had no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could protect him from such threat. Petitioner argues that the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule, and direct filing with the Court is allowed when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time. ISSUE: — Whether direct recourse to the Supreme Court was proper. Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 ~ Procedural Peculiarities - Page 8 of 19RULING NO. The established policy is that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals, and a direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set ‘out in the petition. However, the issue of what parliamentary immunity encompasses, in relation to a lawmaker's speech or words spoken. in debate in Congress, has been addressed as early as 1966 in the case of Nicanor T. Jimenez v. Bartolome Cabangbang, where the Court suecinetly held: The determination of the first isswe depends on whether or not the aforementioned publication falls within the purview of the phrase "speech or debate therein"-that is to say, in Congress used in this provision. Said expression refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the same is in session, as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is in session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such, at the time of the performance of the acts in question. Clearly, settled jurisprudence provides sufficient standards and guidelines by which the trial and appellate courts can address and resolve the issue of parliamentary immunity raised by petitioner. The Court is, thus, unconvinced that petitioner has presented an "exceptionally compelling reason" to justify his direct application for a writ of certiorari with this Court. Even assuming arguendo that direct recourse to this Court is permissible, the petition must still be dismissed. Petitioner admits that he uttered the questioned statements, describing private respondent as former VP Binay’s “front” or "dummy" in connection with the so called Hacienda Binay, in response to media interviews during gaps and breaks in plenary and committee hearings in the Senate. With Jimenez as our guidepost, it is evident that petitioner's remarks fall outside the privilege of speech or debate under Section 11, Article VIof the 1987 Constitution. The statements were clearly not part of any speech delivered in the Senate or any of its committees. They were also not spoken in the course of any debate in said fora. It cannot likewise be successfully contended that they were made in the official discharge or performance of petitioner's duties as a Senator, as the remarks were not part of or integral to the legislative process. Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases. - 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 Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 ~ Procedural Peculiarities - Page 9 of 19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, court, 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 any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the publie 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. ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION OVER ‘THE PERSON OF THE RESPONDENT If the action is filed with the Regional Trial Court, acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent would follow the rules on ordinary civil actions. Thus, Jurisdietion is acquired by the service of summons to the respondent or by his voluntary appearance in court. If the action is filed with either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the court acquires jurisdiction over the respondents with the service on them of its orders indicating its initial action on the petition or by voluntary submission to such jurisdiction ROLE OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT AS NOMINAL PARTY NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION versus MAGELCO G.R. Nos. 192595-96, April 11, 2018 ‘The NEA has no standing to file a petition for review on certiorari of a CA case nullifying its decision for grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The second paragraph of Section 5 of Rule 65 is clear and unequivocal: Sec. 5. xxx 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 any 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 In Barillo v. Lantion, we explained that when the official act of a public respondent is challenged through a special civil action for certiorari and the judgment therein is eventually elevated to a higher court, the public respondent remains a nominal party. This means that the public respondent has no personal interest in the case. The public respondent "should maintain a detached attitude from the case and should not waste his time by taking an active part in a proceeding which relates to official actuations in a case but should apply himself to his prineipal task of hearing and adjudicating the cases in his court." In that case, a judge filed a special civil action for certiorari before this Court assailing a decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The decision of the COMELEC, in turn, found that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a ruling in an election case. We ruled that the judge, as nominal party, has no standing to challenge the decision of the COMELEC before this Court. Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 Procedural Peculiarities - Page 10 of 19This was also our ruling in Calderon v. Solicitor General. In that case, the accused in a case pending before the CA filed a special civil action for certiorari challenging the ruling of the judge which increased the accused's bail. The CA nullified the ruling of the judge. The judge then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before this Court. We refused to rule on the petition on the ground that the petitioner judge has no standing to file it. We explained: Judge Calderon should be reminded of the well-known doctrine that a judge should detach himself from cases where his decision is appealed to a higher court for review. The raison d'etre for such doctrine is the fact that a judge is not an active combatant in such proceeding and must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions and for the appellate court to decide the issues without his active participation. By filing this case, petitioner in a way ceased to be judicial and has become adversarial instead. While these cases both pertained to a respondent judge who elevated the case before us through a special civil action for certiorari, we rule that the doctrine in these eases apply to.a public respondent quasi-judicial agency which files before this Court an appeal of a finding in a special civil action for certiorari that it acted with grave abuse of discretion. First, when Seetion 5 of Rule 65 speaks of public respondent as a nominal party, it makes no distinction. Thus, it refers to all classes of persons and instrumentalities that may become a respondent in a certiorari action, specifically any "judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person." Second, when the last paragraph of Section 5 refers to the elevation to a higher court of the decision in the certiorari action, it does not discriminate as to the mode of elevation. Thus, a public respondent judge elevating an adverse ruling through an appeal under Rule 45 is covered by the provision, Finally, the logical underpinning for this rule — that a public respondent has no personal stake in the outcome of the certiorari case and as such must not become an active combatant — applies with equal force in the case of the NEA. Section 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 ten (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. 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 of a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper. RULE 56, SECTION 2 APPLICABLE Rule 56, Section 2 provides that “(t)he procedure in original cases for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Constitution, laws, and Rules 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 and this Rule, subject to the following provisions: a) Allreferences in said Rules to the Court of Appeals shall be understood to also apply to the Supreme Court; b) The portions of said Rules dealing strictly with and specifically intended for appealed cases in the Court of Appeals shall not be applicable; and Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 — Procedural Peculiarities - Page 11 of 19©) Bighteen (18) clearly legible copies of the petition shall be filed, together with proof of service on all adverse parties. XXX" Rule 46 (Original Cases) governs the contents and filing of petition and effect of noncompliance with requirements, acquisition of jurisdietion over the person of the respondent, and effect of failure to file comment, among others, It also provides in Section 5 that: Section 5. Action by the court. — ‘The court may dismiss the petition outright with specific reasons for such dismissal or require the respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from notice. Only pleadings required by the court shall be allowed. Allother pleadings and papers, may be filed only with leave of court. Rule 48 refers to the conduct of a preliminary conference. Rule 49, on the other hand, governs the conduct oral arguments before the court. Finally, Rules 51 (Judgment) and 52 (Motion for Reconsideration) also apply. FORM AND CONTENTS OF PETITION Failure of petitioner to comply with any of the following requirements shall be sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition: a. ‘The petition shall be verified and filed in eighteen (18) legible copies; b. The petition shall name the aggrieved party as petitioner and join as public respondents the tribunal, officer or body concerned and the person(s) interested in sustaining the judgment, final order, or resolution a quo, as private respondent; c. The petition shall state the facts with certainty, present the issues involved clearly, set forth the grounds and brief arguments relied upon, and pray for judgment: 1, Annulling or modifying the question judgment, order or resolution, if the petition be one for certiorari; or 2. Commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, if the petition be one for prohibition; or 3. 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, if the petition be one for mandamus. d. ‘The petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the of the questioned judgment, order or resolution, together with certified true copes of material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other relevant and pertinent documents; , The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed; f. The petition shall contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping: ‘The petition shall be accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereon on the Commission concerned and on the adverse party, and of the timely payment of docket and other lawful fees; and 1h, Soft copies of the petition and its annexes (the latter in PDF format) must be filed either by email to the Court's e-mail address or by compact dise (see Efficient Use of Paper Rule). MATERIAL DATA RULE APPLICABLE Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 — Procedural Peculiarities - Page 12 of 19MERCADO versus LOPENA G.R. No. 230170, June 06, 2018, ‘The Petition is dismissible for failure to include a statement of material dates in violation of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 3 of Rule 46. Rule 46 provides that the following material dates must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65: (a) the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; (®) the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and (©) the date when notice of the denial thereof was received. The same provision states that the petitioner's failure to comply with said requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. The purpose of this requirement is to determine whether the petition was filed within the proper reglementary period. A petition for certiorari or prohibition must be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief.- The court in which the petition is filed 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 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 ten (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. E FFECTS OF FILING PETITION ON THE PRINCIPAL CASE ‘The filing of a petition under Rule 65 does not: 1. Interrupt the course of the principal aetion; 2. Affect the running of the reglementary periods involved in the proceedings (FUENTES versus SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 164664, July 20, 2006); 3. Stay the execution of judgment, unless a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction has been issued. CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL COURTESY Under Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the higher court should issue against the public respondent a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction in order to interrupt the course of the principal case. The petitioner in a Rule 65 petition has the burden of proof to show that there is a meritorious ground for the issuance of an injunctive writ or order to suspend the proceedings before the public respondent. He should show the existence of an urgent necessity for the writ or order, so that serious damage may be prevented. Nonetheless, even if an injunctive writ or order is issued, the lower court retains jurisdiction over the principal case Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 — Procedural Peculiarities - Page 13 of 19(TRAJANO versus UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, G.R. No. 190253, June 11, 2014), It is worthy of note that the Supreme Court, in ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK versus COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. L-50054, August 17, 1988, introduced the principle of judicial courtesy to justify the suspension of the proceedings before the lower court, even without an injunctive writ or order from the higher court. In that ease, the Supreme Court pronounced that due respect for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical considerations should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the final determination of the petition for certiorari before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render moot exactly what was before the Supreme Court. How should this concept of judicial courtesy be interpreted in the light of the cleat provisions of Section 7? The Supreme Court had previous oecasion to rule that judicial courtesy is merely an exception to Section 7, the general rule. SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC. versus MACATLANG, ET AL. G.R. No. 180147, January 14, 2015 In the recent case of Trajano v. Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, this Court gave a brief discourse on judicial courtesy, which concept was first introduced in Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Court of Appeals, to wit: x x x [tjhe principle of judicial courtesy to justify the suspension of the proceedings before the lower court even without an injunctive writ or order from the higher court. In that case, we pronounced that "[djue respect for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical considerations should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the final determination of the petition [for certiorari) before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render moot exactly what was before this [Clourt.” We subsequently reiterated the concept of judicial courtesy in Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. v. Court of Appeals. We, however, have qualified and limited the application of judicial courtesy in Go v. Abrogar and Republic v. Sandiganbayan. In these cases, we expressly delimited the application of judicial courtesy to maintain the efficacy of Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and held that the principle of judicial courtesy applies only "if there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court.” Through these cases, we clarified that the principle of judicial courtesy remains to be the exception rather than the rule. Judicial courtesy indeed applies if there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court. This is the exception contemplated in the aforesaid ruling and it obtains in this case. The 19 December 2006 ruling of the NLRC would moot the appeal filed before the higher courts because the issue involves the appeal bond which is an indispensable requirement to the perfection of the appeal before the NLRC. Unless this issue is resolved, the NLRC should be precluded from ruling on the merits on the case. This is the essence of judicial courtesy. OCA, ET AL. versus CUSTODIO G.R. No. 199825, July 26, 2017 Judicial courtesy is exercised by suspending a lower court's proceedings although there is no injunetion or an order from a higher court. The purpose is to avoid mooting the matter raised in the higher court. It is exercised as a matter of respect and for practical considerations. However, this principle applies only if the continuation of the lower court's proceedings will render moot the issue raised in the higher court. Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65— Procedural Peculiarities - Page 14 of 19BAR QUESTION 2003 In an action for specific performance in the MTC, defendant Sarah filed a motion to dismiss the action based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Sarah’s motion to dismiss was denied. Sarah filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC. Vince then filed with the MTC a motion to declare Sarah in default. The motion was opposed by Sarah on the ground that his petition for certiorari was still pending. Resolve the motion to declare the defendant in default. SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The court can declare Sarah in default because she did not obtain a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order from the RTC prohibiting the judge from proceeding in the case during the pendency of the petition for certiorari (Diaz v. Diaz, G.R. No. 135885, April 28, 2000). Section 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 hear the case or 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 patently without merit or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or 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 under Rules 139 and 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Court may impose motu proprio, based onres ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari. 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 either hear the case or require the parties to submit ‘memoranda, Hearing of the petition may be had on oral argument under Rule 49. Section 1 of the said rule provides that, at its own instance or upon motion of a party, the court may hear the parties in oral argument on the merits of a case, or on any material incident in connection therewith. The oral argument shall be limited to such matters as the court may specify in its order or resolution. Unless authorized by the court, only one counsel may argue for a party. The duration allowed for each party, the sequence of the argumentation, and all other related matters shall be as directed by the court (Section 2). Of note is the rule that there is no hearing or oral argument for motions. Motions shall not be set for hearing and, unless the court otherwise directs, no hearing or oral argument shall be allowed in support thereof. The adverse party may file objections to the motion within five (6) days from service, upon the expiration of which such motion shall be deemed submitted for resolution (Section 3). Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 Procedural Peculiarities - Page 15 of 19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 shalll render judgment for such relief to which the petitioner is entitled. EFFECTS OF FILING UNMERITORIOUS PETITION ‘The Court may impose motu propio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory an unmeritorious petition (A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, Dee. 12, 2007). ‘The court may dismiss the petition outright if it finds the same: 1, Patently without merit; 2. Prosecuted manifestly for delay; or 3, Ifthe 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 under Rules 139 and 139-B. Section 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 of Rule 39. SERVICE AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER OR JUDGMENT certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the respondent court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person concerned in such manner as the court may direct. Disobedience to the judgment is punishable as contempt of the court rendering it. Finally, an execution may issue for any damages or costs awarded in the judgment. JUDGMENT IN MANDAMUS DEEMED ASPECIAL JUDGMENT SIA versus ARCENAS, ET AL. G.R. Nos. 209672-74, January 14, 2015 Given that the judgment in SCA No. V-7075 ordered the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the performance of a ministerial duty, and not the payment of money or the sale or delivery of real or personal property, the same is in the nature of a special judgment — that is which a judgment directs the performance of a specific act requiring the party or person to personally do because of his personal qualifications and circumstances. As such, execution of the said judgment should be governed by Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides: Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 — Procedural Peculiarities - Page 16 of 19SEC. 11. Execution of special judgments. — When a judgment requires the performance of any act other than those mentioned in [Sections 9 and 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court), a certified copy of the judgment shall be attached to the writ of execution and shall be served by the officer upon the party against whom the same is rendered, or upon any other person required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and such party or person may be punished for contempt if he disobeys such judgment. This is in consonance with the rule on service and enforcement of orders or judgments concerning, among others, the special civil action of mandamus under Section 9, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. XXX The rule therefore is that the service and execution of a special judgment, such as a favorable judgment in mandamus- as in this case — should be deemed to be limited to directing compliance with the judgment, and in case of disobedience, to have the disobedient person required by law to obey such judgment punished with contempt. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS WHEN UNAVAILABLE ‘The petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are not available in these cases: 1. Incases falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure, as to interlocutory orders issued by the lower court (Sec. 19(g), Rules on Summary Procedure}; 2. In writ of amparo cases, against any interlocutory order [Sec. 11(), Rule on Writ of Amparo}; 3. In petitions for writ of habeas data, against any interlocutory order [Sec, 13), AM. No. 08-1-16]; and 4, In small claims cases, against interlocutory order issued by the lower court [See. 14(g) of AM. No. 08-8-7-8C] REMEDY AGAINST JUDGMENTS IN SMALL CLAIMS CASES Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases states that: Section. 23. Decision. — After the hearing, the court shall render its decision on the same day, based on the facts established by the evidence (Form 13- SCC). The decision shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties. The decision shall be final and unappealable. Considering the final nature of a decision in a smalll claims case under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (A-L. ANG NETWORK, INC. vs. MONDEJAR, G.R. No. 200804, January 22, 2014) BAR QUESTION 2013 What is the legal remedy if'a party loses a small claims case? Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 — Procedural Peculiarities - Page 17 of 19SUGGESTED ANSWER: He may file a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the RTC since a decision in small claims cases is final and unappealable (See. 23, A.M. No. 88-7 SC, Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases). The petition for certiorai Regional Trial Court conformably to the Principle of Judicial Hier ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT, ALSO A REMEDY FOR JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS Annulment of judgment, as provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, is based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. It is a recourse that presupposes the filing of a separate and original action for the purpose of annulling or avoiding a decision in another case. Annulment is a remedy in law independent of the case whore the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered, It is unlike a motion for reconsideration, appeal or even a petition for relief from judgment, because annulment is not a continuation or progression of the same case, as in fact the case it seeks to annul is already final and executory. Rather, it is an extraordinary remedy that is equitable in character and is permitted only in exceptional cases (COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE versus KEPCO ILIJAN CORPORATION, G.R. No. 199422, June 21, 2016) Annulment of judgment involves the exercise of original jurisdiction, as expressly conferred on the Court of Appeals by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, Section 9(2). It also implies power by a superior court over a subordinate one, as provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, wherein the appellate court may annul a decision of the regional trial court, or the latter court may annul a decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court (COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE versus KEPCO ILIJAN CORPORATION, G.R. No. 199422, June 21, 2016) Of particular note is the fact that lack of jurisdiction is a ground for annulment of judgment, the remedy being considered a direct attack on the validity of a judgment similar. As a direct attack on the validity of a judgment, it has the same function as certiorari. Both annulment of judgment and certiorari are extraordinary remedies that are equitable in character and are permitted only in exceptional cases. Also, both remedies, may be dismissed outright should the court find no substantial merit in the petition. CERTIORARI AND ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT COMPARED LOTTO ANT As to grounds In certiorari, the grounds are | Annulment may be based only lack or excess of jurisdiction, | on the grounds of extrinsic or grave abuse of discretion | fraud and lack of jurisdietion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction As to which court has | The Supreme Court, Court of |The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction Appeals and the Regional | original exclusive jurisdiction Trial Court have concurrent | to annul final judgments and resolutions of the Regional Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 — Procedural Peculiarities - Page 18 of 19jurisdiction, subject to the | Trial Court Section 9, BP 129) doctrine of hierarchy of courts. | The Regional Trial Court has exclusive jurisdietion to annul final judgments and resolutions of the Municipal or Metropolitan trial court: ‘As to lack of other Certiorari is available if there | Annulment is available in remedies is no appeal or other plain, | cases where the ordinary speedy and adequate remedy | remedies of new trial, appeal, inthe ordinary course of law. | petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. ‘As to period for filing | The petition may be filed not | If based on extrinsic fraud, the later than sixty (60) days from | action must be filed within four notice of the judgment, order | (4) years from its discovery; or resolution. In case a motion | and if based on lack of for reconsideration or new | jurisdiction, before it is barred trial is timely filed, whether | by laches or estoppel. such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the | denial of the motion. As to procedure followed | The procedure in special civil | The procedure in ordinary civil actions (Rule 65) shall be | cases shall be observed. observed. As to effect of judgment | A judgment in a petition for | A judgment of annulment shall certiorari annuls or modifies | set aside the _ questioned the proceedings of such | judgment or final order or tribunal, board or officer, resolution and render the same null and void. As to incidental reliefs | The judgment may grant such |'The judgment of annulment incidental reliefs as law and| may include the award of justice may require. An| damages, attorney's fees and execution may also issue for | other relief. any damages or costs awarded in accordance with Section 1 of Rule 39. Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (JZE) Rule 65 — Procedural Peculiarities - Page 19 of 19