1
RULE 65:CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
CERTIORARI
NOT A MODE OF APPEAL (unlike in rule45) and it is not based on question of law.
Certiorari is directed on interlocutory order, and it can either be filed by SC, CA,
and RTC (always observed hierarchy of courts)
An application for certiorari is an independent action which is not part or a continuation of
the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of. Impliedly, a
petition for certiorari pending before a higher court does not necessarily become moot and
academic by a continuation of the proceedings in the court of origin. (Sps. Juan Diaz v.
Jose Diaz, G.R. No. 135885, 2000).
REQUISITES OF CERTIORARI
1. there must be a CONTROVERSY;
2. respondent is exercising JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS;
4blue95:you can only question a tribunal if it acts on a judicial or quasi-
judicial(like the NLRC) function (coz if not,then no certiorari)
Issuance by BSP-Monetary Board of CB Circulars is done in the exercise of
an executive function and thus may not be the subject of certiorari petition.
(Advocates for Truth in Lending v. BSP Monetary Board, G.R. No. 192986,
2013)
The Secretary of Finance in issuing Revenue Regulations based on SEC. 244
of the NRIC is in the exercise of quasi-legislative functions, hence outside
the scope of certiorari. (Clark Investors Association v. Secretary of Finance,
G.R. No. 200670, 2015)
EXCEPTION: However, with respect to the SC, certiorari and
prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction by a person or
body even if not exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
functions where the matter is of “transcendental importance to the
nation.” (Villanueva v. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, 2015)
3. respondents acted WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS
JURISDICTION or acted with GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
Jurisdictional Errors
a. Without jurisdiction – Respondent does not have the legal power to
determine the case (Sps. Dacudao v. SOJ, G.R. No. 186056, 2013).
b. Excess of jurisdiction – Respondent, being clothed with the power to
determine the case, oversteps his authority as determined by law.
c. Grave abuse of discretion – generally refers to a "capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of
discretion must be patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act
at all in contemplation of law. (Atty. Allan Hilbero v. Florencia Morales, Jr.,
G.R. No. 198760, 2017).
4. there must be NO APPEAL or other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy.
4blue95. A remedy is plain, speedy, and adequate if it will promptly relieve
the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment, order, or resolution
of the lower court of agency. (Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, 2015).
4blue95. Certiorari is a remedy of last resort. It is not available if the party
still has another speedy and adequate remedy (such as appeal) available.
(Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 218536, 2016).
WRIT OF CERTIORARI – is a writ emanating from a superior court directed against an
inferior court, tribunal, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the
purpose of which is to CORRECT ERRORS OF JURISDICTION.
Question of fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari. Only established or
admitted facts can be considered.
Special civil action for certiorari on Rule 65 should not be confused with Appeal by
certiorari under Rule 45.:SEE RULE 45 FOR DISTINCTIONS.
4blue95: rule 45 is from RTC or Sandiganbayan going to SC (petition for
certiorari ) it is a mode of appeal aka ―appeal by certiorari‖ on question of law.
4blue95:in RULE45, di na kelangan ng motion for reconsideration and that judge
is not impleaded.
Are the remedies of APPEAL AND CERTIORARI EXCLUSIVE?
General Rule: Where the proper remedy is appeal, the action for certiorari will not be
entertained. Certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment. Errors of judgment are corrective
by appeal, errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari.
EXCEPTIONS: Even when appeal is available a writ of certiorari may be allowed:
a. Where the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy;
b. Where the orders were also issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction;
c. For certain special considerations, as public welfare or public policy;
d. Where, in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution
as, in case of acquittal, there could be no remedy;
e. Where the order is a patent nullity; and
f. Where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations.
(REGALADO, 2008 ed.)
Even when the period for APPEAL HAS LAPSED, SC has allowed a writ of
certiorari (EVEN IF NO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – SO
APPLICABLE TO CPM ):
a. When appeal is lost without the appellants’ negligence;
b. When public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates;
c. When the broader interest of justice so requires;
d. When the writs issued are null and void; and
e. When the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial
authority. (Sunbeam Convenience Foods v. CA, G.R. No. 50464, 1990)
4BLUE95:ONCE ORDER BECOMES FINAL,CERTIORARI CANNOT BE ASSAILED.
WHEN THE REMEDY BY APPEAL HAD ALREADY BEEN LOST DUE
TO THE PETITIONER’S OWN NEGLECT OR ERROR IN THE CHOICE
OF REMEDIES, CERTIORARI CANNOT LIE. THE TWO REMEDIES
ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. (MERALCO V. CA, G.R. NO. 88396, 1990).
BAR:On Jan 3,1991, Z . filed a complaint for foreclosure of real estate mortgage
against one of its sales agents. A,who was discovered to have incurred a shortage in
his account. Mortgage was executed to guarantee faithful compliance with his
duties and responsibilities as agent. Impleaded in complaint as co-defendants were
A’s co-mortgagors Band C.
Acting on defendant’s MTD, court dismissed complaint in order dated Feb
15,1991, a copy of which was received by Z on Feb 18. On March 15 and definitely
within reasonable time, Z filed with SC a special civil action for certiorari alleging
that trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction.
HELD: SC should not give due course to petition since the proper remedy is appeal
from order of dismissal. Certiorari under Rule 65 cannot take the place of a lost
appeal.
BAR: While trial was going on,lawyer of Mario Reyes discovered there was
improper service of summons, since it was sent by registered mail. He filed a
motion to dismiss on ground of court’s lack of jurisdiction over person of Mario. If
MTD is denied, what is recourse of Mario? It is not immediate appeal since order
is interlocutory, but since issue raised is lack of jurisdiction over his person, he may
file petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
4blue95: If you want to question acts of court, then you can file either or both
CERTIORARI and PROHIBITION.
4blue95: order attached in certiorari and mandamus must be certified true copy and with
affidavit of non-forum shopping.
4BLUE95. CERTIORARI is the Proper Remedy to Appeal a DECLARATION of
Presumptive Death
Q: The defendant was declared in default in the RTC for his failure to file an answer to a
complaint for a sum of money. On the basis of the plaintiff’s ex parte presentation of evidence,
judgment by default was rendered against the defendant. The default judgment was served on the
defendant on October 1, 2001. On October 10, 2001, he files a verified motion to lift the order of
default and to set aside the judgment. In his motion, the defendant alleged that, immediately upon
receipt of the summons, he saw the plaintiff and confronted him with his receipt evidencing his
payment and the plaintiff assured him that he would instruct his lawyer to withdraw the complaint.
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion because it was not accompanied by an affidavit of
merit. The defendant filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the denial
order.
a. Is certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy? Why?
A: Yes. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the defendant is the proper remedy
because appeal is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In
appeal, the defendant in default can only question the decision in the light of the evidence of the
plaintiff. The defendant cannot invoke the receipt to prove payment of his obligation to the
plaintiff.
b. Did the trial court abuse its discretion or act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in denying
the defendant’s motion to lift the order of default judgement? Why? (2002 Bar)
A: Yes, the trial court gravely abused its discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in
denying the defendant’s motion because it was not accompanied by a separate affidavit of merit.
In his verified motion to lift the order of default and to set aside the judgment, the defendant
alleged that immediately upon the receipt of the summons, he saw the plaintiff and confronted him
with his receipt showing payment and that the plaintiff assured him that he would instruct his
lawyer to withdraw the complaint. Since the good defense of the defendant was already
incorporated in the verified motion, there was no need for a separate affidavit of merit. (Capuz v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112795, June 27, 1994; Mago v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115624,
February 25, 1999)
 2

RULES COMMON TO CPM BAR MATTER 2024

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS PRE-REQUISITE DIFFERENT MODES OF CERTIORARI:

General Rule: A motion for reconsideration is an essential precondition for the filing of a
petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus. It is plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Its purpose is to give the court a quo the opportunity to correct itself. a. As a mode of Appeal from RTC or CA to the Supreme Court
1. Where the order is a patent nullity;
2. Where the question raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and Certiorari as mode of appeal(rule 45) allows appeal from judgment, final order of
passed upon by the lower court; resolution of the Court of Appeals,Sandiganbayan, RTC or other courts whenever
3. Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question; authorized by law to the Supreme Court by verified petition for review raising only
4. Where a motion for reconsideration would be useless; questions of law distinctly set forth.
5. Where petitioner is deprived o due process;
6. Where, in criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable;
7. Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. b.As a Special Civil action (rule 65)

EFFECT OF FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
If a motion for reconsideration filed, the period shall not only be interrupted but another 60 days
shall be given to the petitioner within which to file the appropriate petition for certiorari or
prohibition with the superior court. (SC Administrative Circular 002-03)
when aggrieved party may file a verified petition against a decision,final order of a tribunal
or board that has acted w/o or in excess of its jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when there is no appeal or any other
plain,speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.

Where the error is not one of jurisdiction but an error of law or fact which is a mistake of
judgment, appeal is the remedy. c. As a mode of review of decisions of the NLRC and the CONCOM.

Certiorari as a mode of review of the decision of NLRC is elevated to the CA under Rule
Small Claims – Certiorari Is Proper 65 as held in St.Martin’s Funeral Homes v NLRC.

Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision under Sec. 23 of the Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases, 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 v. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804, 2014)
Certiorari as a mode of review from the COA and COMELEC elevated to the SC w/in 30
days from notice of the judgment, decision or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed as provided for under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure.
In the case of the Civil Service Commission, review of judgments is through petitions for
review under sec.5 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure.

Certiorari and Not Mandamus May be Issued Against the JBC

Although the JBC does not fall within the scope of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions, in the process of selecting and screening applicants, the
JBC neither acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor assumed unto itself any
performance of judicial or quasijudicial prerogative. However, since the formulation of
guidelines and criteria, including the policy that the petitioner now assails, is necessary and
incidental to the exercise of the JBC’s constitutional mandate, a determination must be 2022 notes: Concept of Remedial law lies at the very core of procedural due process,
made on whether the JBC has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or which means a law which hears before it condemns,which proceeds upon inquiry and
excess of jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing the said policy. (Villanueva v. Judicial & renders judgment only after trial and contemplates an opportunity to be heard before
Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, 2015) judgment is rendered.
The writ of mandamus does not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion or to
compel a course of conduct, which, it quickly seems to us, was what the petitioner would
have the JBC do in his favor. The function of the JBC to select and recommend nominees 2022 notes: substantive law is that part of the law which creates,defines and regulates
for vacant judicial positions is discretionary, not ministerial. (Id.). rights concerning life,liberty or property or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for
the administration of public affairs.
Remedial law prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their
GROUNDS FOR THE COURT TO MOTU PROPIO DISMISS THE SPECIAL invasion.
CIVIL ACTION FOR CPM
1. patently without merit
2. prosecuted manifestly for delay, or CERTIORARI PROHIBITION MANDAMUS
3. the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
(prohibit something to be (compel something to be
2022 NOTE: A writ of certiorari or prohibition CANNOT be issued by an RTC against done) done)
an ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS Directed against an entity or Directed against an entity or Directed against an entity or
since the later is of the same rank as the RTC. person exercising judicial or person exercising judicial- person exercising ministerial
However, a writ of prohibition MAY BE issued by the RTC against ADMINISTRATIVE quasi-judicial function quasi-judicial or ministerial function
AGENCIES EXERCISING ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS. function
Entity or person is alleged to Entity or person is alleged to Entity or person is alleged to
A person NOT A PARTY to the proceedings in the trial court or in the CA have acted: have acted: have unlawfully;
cannot maintain an action for CPM in the SC to have the judgment reviewed. -Without jurisdiction; -Without jurisdiction; -Neglected a ministerial duty;
(Ramos vs. Lampe, 63 Phil 216) -In excess of jurisdiction; or -In excess of jurisdiction; or or
-With grave abuse of _With grave abuse of excluded another from a right
discretion amounting to lack discretion amounting to lack a right or office
AN ORIGINAL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS, IS AN or excess of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction
INDEPENDENT ACTION AND AS SUCH: Purpose is to annul or nullify Purpose is to have respondent Purpose is for respondent to:
a proceeding desist from further 1. Do he act required; and
1. does not interrupt the course of the principal action; proceeding 2. to pay damages
2. does not affect the running of the reglementary periods involved in the This remedy is corrective – to This remedy is preventive This remedy is affirmative or
proceedings; correct usurpation of and negative – restrain or positive (if the performance
3. does not stay the execution of judgment, unless a temporary restraining order or jurisdiction prevent usurpation of of a duty is ordered) or it is
writ, of preliminary injunction has been issued. jurisdiction negative (if a person is
ordered to desist from
excluding another from a
In original actions for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, when does the court acquire right of office)
jurisdiction over the person of the respondent? Covers discretionary acts Covers discretionary and Covers ministerial acts
IT depends: ministerial acts
If the action is filed with the RTC, we follow the rules on ordinary civil actions, hence,
jurisdiction is acquired by the service of summons to the respondent or by his voluntary
appearance in court.
If the action to filed with the CA or the SC, the court acquires jurisdiction over the
respondents with the service on them of its orders indicating its initial action on the petition
or by their voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.
 3

MANDAMUS
PREROGATIVE WRIT MANDAMUS INJUNCTION
Remedial Preventive
1. there must be a CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT OR DUTY To set in motion and to compel action. To restrain motion or to enforce inaction
(ACTIVE) (CONSERVATIVE)
2. act to be performed must be PRACTICAL within the powers of the
Motion to dismiss –Rule 16 and 17 Additional ground for Motion to Dismiss-
respondent to perform such that if the writ of mandamus was issued, he can
Rule 58 Sec. 6
comply with it, or else the essence will be defeated.
3. respondent must be exercising a MINISTERIAL DUTY – a duty which is
DISCRETIONARY MINISTERIAL ACT
absolute and imperative and involves merely its execution; ACT
4. duty or act to be performed must be EXISTING – a correlative right will be
denied if not performed by the respondents; and One where public functionaries, by virtue of a One which an officer or tribunal performs in a
5. NO APPEAL or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary power or right, conferred upon them by law, given state of facts, in prescribed manner, in
course of law. Preliminary injunction must be sought. can act officially, under certain circumstances, obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,
uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of without regard to or the exercise of his own
Writ of Mandamus – a writ issued in the name of the State, to an inferior tribunal others judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of
corporation, board or person, COMMANDING THE PERFORMANCE of an act which the act done.
the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.
Mandamus May Not be Used to Compel
Discretionary Duties;
GROUNDS FOR MANDAMUS
Exception General Rule: Mandamus is
1. When any tribunal, corporation, board officer or person unlawfully neglects applicable to a ministerial duty. Exception: As
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty for discretionary duties, it can be used to the
resulting from an office, trust or station; extent of requiring performance of a
2. When any tribunal, corporation, board officer or person unlawfully excludes discretionary duty to act but not to require
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is performance of such duty in a particular
entitled (di pwede IF IN PRIVATE CAPACITY ang act complained) manner. (BF Homes v. NWRC, G.R. No.
78529, 1987)

2 Concepts: Exceptions to the Exception: The respondent

can be ordered to act in a particular manner to
1.POSITIVE REMEDY--Mandamus is a special civil action whereby a court of control discretion when there is:
jurisdiction commands an inferior tribunal, corp or person to perform a particular duty w/c a. Grave abuse of discretion;
the law requires to be done resulting from such office or trust. b. Manifest injustice; or (4 BLUE 95)
c. Palpable excess of authority. (M.A. Jimenez
2.NEGATIVE REMEDY--Mandamus is a preventive remedy whereby a person is Enterprises v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 155307,
2011)
directed to desist from unlawfully excluding another from the use/enjoyment of an
office,trust or station.

MANDAMUS vs. QUO WARRANTO
Mandamus is the proper remedy when the respondent unlawfully excludes the petitioner
from an office to which the latter is entitled without usurping, intruding into or unlawfully
holding the office, on the other hand, if the respondent claims any right to the office and
usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds it against the petitioner, quo warranto is the
proper remedy.
RESPONDENTS
The principal defendant/respondent is the judge as a person, not the court as an entity.
However, he is merely a nominal or formal party.
The non-inclusion of the person interested in sustaining the proceedings renders the
petition defective. (RP vs. Zurbano, 105 PHIL 409)

MANDAMUS MAY BE COMBINED WITH QUO WARRANTO
The complaint for mandamus is against the persons who exclude the plaintiff from the
office in question, while the petition fro quo warranto is directed against the person who
actually holds he said office. (Burguelo vs. mayor, 94 PHIL 930)
Can the Court of Appeals award damages in mandamus proceedings?
YES. The CA in resolving a petition for mandamus is authorized to award civil damages in
the same petition.

4blue95 Notes: Mandamus in both concepts is directed against entities exercising

only ministerial functions. The result is the respondent is ordered to desist from A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS WAS CONSIDERED PROPER IN THE
further proceedings. FOLLOWING INSTANCES:

HELD: I will file Quo Warranto to compel X to show by what right he continues to
hold office as mayor to which B was newly elected to the position.
X not merely excludes B from the use and enjoyment of the office, but lays claim to
such office. If X merely excludes B from the office, w/o making a claim to it under a
color of law, then ,the remedy would be mandamus.
1.Necessity to compel performance of a ministerial act w/c law requires to be performed
by an officer of the legislative department.
2.Need to compel the performance of a ministerial act but not to compel a discretionary
duty
3.Issuance of execution by a municipal judge in a case where the defendant fails to pay
rent within the time fixed in the judgment.
4.Where there is need for the court to grant permission to 3rd persons to intervene in an
action authorized by law.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY

MANDAMUS NOT PROPER IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
General Rule: Mandamus will not be issued when administrative remedies are still
available. i. To enforce purely contractual obligations;
Exceptions:
1. if party is in estoppel; and ii. When there is another speedy and adequate remedy;
2. Pure questions of law are raised.
iii. To compel a school to readmit students, and/or to confer academic honors, in violation
May mandamus be used to compel a discretionary duty? of the school’s academic freedom. (University of San Agustin v. CA, G.R. No. 100588;
NO. it is only applicable to a ministerial duty, HOWEVER, it can be used to the extent of University of San Carlos v. CA, G.R. No. 79237 1988);
requiring the performance of a discretionary duty to act but not to require performance of
such duty in a particular manner. iv. To compel the performance of an act already done, such as to include one’s name in the
list of graduates and allow him to take part in the graduation exercises, as the same was
4blue95: you can compel court to act,but you cannot compel them to act in your favor moot since the graduation ceremony had already pushed through. (Cudia v. The
(since discretionary) Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362, 2015)
 4

PROHIBITION WHEN TO FILE PETITION FOR CPM

Within 60 days from notice of the assailed judgment, order or resolution.

WRIT OF PROHIBITION – writ issuing from a superior court directed against an inferior court,
corporation, board, officer or other person whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions for the purpose of PREVENTING THE LATTER FROM USURPING JURISDICTION
which it is not legally vested.
4blue95. Prohibition, and not mandamus, is the remedy where a motion to dismiss
is improperly denied.
4blue95:It is directed ANYBODY.The result is the respondent is ordered to desist
from further proceedings.
GENERAL RULE: Prohibition is INTEDED TO PROHIBIT FUTURE ACTS and does not
ordinarily lie to restrain an act which is already a FAIT ACCOMPLI (accomplished facts)
In case a motion for reconsideration or a motion for a new trial is timely filed: within 60
days from notice of the denial of said motion. (Sec. 4, Rule 65)
Where to File Petition
a. If the petition relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court, corporation, board,
or officer or person: RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined
by the SC.
b. If the petition relates to the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency:
Cognizable only by the CA;
c. To the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals, whether or not in aid of the court’s
appellate jurisdiction. (Id.)

EXCEPTION:
Even when an act is already fait accompli, SC has allowed a writ of prohibition:
a. Where it would prevent the creation of a new province by those in the corridors
of power who could avoid judicial intervention and review by merely speedily and
stealthily completing the commission of such illegality. (Tan v. Comelec, G.R. No.
73155, 1986);
b. Where it would provide a complete relief by not only preventing what remains to
be done but by undoing what has been done, such as terminating a preliminary
investigation instead of filing a motion to quash. (Aurillo v. Rabi, G.R. No.
120014, 2002);
c. Where the acts sought to be enjoined were performed after the injunction suit is
brought.
2022 Note: R.A. 10660 provides that the Sandiganbayan 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 that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, that the
JURISDICTION over these petitions shall NOT BE EXCLUSIVE OF THE
SUPREME COURT
RELIEFS PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO

The primary reliefs available to petitioner are:

REQUISITES OF PROHIBITION
a. Petition of certiorari – That the judgment, order, or resolution subject of the
1. there must be a CONTROVERSY petition for certiorari be annulled or modified. (Sec. 1, Rule 65);
2. respondent is exercising JUDICIAL QUASI-JUDICIAL OR MINISTERIAL
FUNCTIONS; b. Petition for prohibition – That the respondent be ordered to desist from further
3. respondent acted WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION or acted
proceedings in the action or matter specified in the petition for prohibition. (Sec. 2,
with GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and
4. there must be NO APPEAL or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Rule 65); or

(BAR) An action that seeks to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land. B filed a
motion to dismiss this complaint file w/ RTC of Manila on ground of improper venue. Court
denied motion. B filed motion for recon of the order denying his motion to dismiss. Court also
denied this motion. Thereupon, b filed w/ SC a petition for certiorari.
HELD: Remedy taken by B is not proper. B should file petition for prohibition.
2022 notes: Prohibition is generally directed against a court or judicial officer while injunction is
directed against private parties. Prohibition strikes at the very essence of jurisdiction, whereas
,injunction ordinarily recognizes jurisdiction of the court.
4blue95:Prohibition must not be confused with injunction
c. Petition for mandamus – That the respondent, immediately or at some other time
to be specified by the court, do the act required to be done to protect the
petitioner’s rights, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of
the respondent’s wrongful acts (Sec. 3, Rule 65)
Common to certiorari, prohibition and mandamus – The court may grant such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. It may also award damages. (Sec.
9, Rule 65).
This may include provisional remedies, final injunctions, mandatory injunctions to
return the parties to the status quo, etc.

Q: Distinguish error of jurisdiction from error of judgment. (2012 Bar)

A: An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
Such an error does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and is correctible only by appeal; whereas
an error of jurisdiction is one which the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such an
error renders an order or judgment void or voidable and is correctible by the special civil action of
certiorari. (Dela Cruz v. Moir, G.R. No. L-12256, February 6, 1917; Cochingyan v. Cloribel, G.R.
No. 27070-71, April 22, 1977; Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998; Artistica
Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 167583-84, June
16, 2010)
ACTIONS OR OMISSIONS OF FIRSTLEVEL/REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS IN
ELECTION CASES
In election cases involving an act or omission of the MTC or RTC, the petition for
certiorari shall be filed exclusively with the COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
(Sec. 4, Rule 65)

Q: Compare the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Constitution with that under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. (2008 Bar)
A: Under the Constitution, the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides for its
expanded jurisdiction power of judicial review over all branches or instrumentalities of the EFFECTS OF FILING OF AN UNMERITORIOUS PETITION
government where there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
as provided in Section 1, second par., Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Under Rule 65 of the The court may dismiss the petition for being unmeritorious—that is:
Rules of Court, the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to acts done without or
in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a. It is patently without merit;
by a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions only. And the period b. It is prosecuted manifestly for delay; or
fixed for availing of the remedy is not later than 60 days from notice of judgment; order or c. If the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
resolution in question. (Secs. 1 and 4, Rule 65) Q: AB mortgaged his property to CD. AB failed to
pay his obligation and CD filed an action for foreclosure of mortgage. After trial, the court issued
an Order granting CD’s prayer for foreclosure of mortgage and ordering AB to pay CD the full
amount of the mortgage debt including interest and other charges not later than 120 days from date
of receipt of the Order. AB received the Order on August 10, 1999. No other proceeding took
place thereafter. On December 20, 1999, AB tendered the full amount adjudged by the court to CD
but the latter refused to accept it on the ground that the money was tendered beyond the 120-day
period granted by the court. AB filed a motion in the same court praying that CD be directed to
receive the amount tendered by him on the ground that the Order does not comply with the
provisions of Section 2, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court which give AB 120 day from entry of
judgment, and not from date of receipt of the Order. The court denied his motion on the ground
that Order had already become final and can no longer be amended to conform with Section 2,
Rule 68. Aggrieved, AB files a petition for certiorari against the Court and CD. Will the petition
for certiorari prosper? Explain. (2000 Bar) A: Yes. The court erred in issuing an Order granting
CD’s prayer for foreclosure of mortgage and ordering AB to pay CD the full amount of the
mortgage and ordering AB to pay CD the full amount of the mortgage debt including interest and
other charges not later than 120 days from receipt of the Order. The court should have rendered a
judgment which is appealable. Since no appeal was taken, the judgment became final on August
25, 1999, which is the date of entry of judgment (Sec. 2, Rule 36). Hence, AB had up to December
24, 1999 within which to pay the amount due (Sec. 2, Rule 68). The court gravely abused its
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying AB’s motion praying that CD be
directed to receive the amount tendered.
 5

Q: May the aggrieved party file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
thereof for the nullification of a decision of the Court of Appeals in the exercise either of its
original or appellate jurisdiction? Explain. (1999, 2005 Bar)
A: To nullify a decision of the Court of Appeals the aggrieved party should file a petition for
review on certiorari in the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court instead of filing a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 except under very exceptional circumstances. Certiorari is not
a substitute for a lost appeal. It should be noted, however, when the Court of Appeals imposes the
death penalty, or a lesser penalty for offenses committed on such occasion, appeal by petition for
review or ordinary appeal. In cases when the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or a lesser penalty, appeal is by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
Q: After an information for rape was filed in the RTC, the DOJ Secretary, acting on the accused's
petition for review, reversed the investigating prosecutor's finding of probable cause. Upon order
of the DOJ Secretary, the trial prosecutor REMEDIAL Law 56 filed a Motion to Withdraw
Information which the judge granted. The order of the judge stated only the following: "Based on
the review by the DOJ Secretary of the findings of the investigating prosecutor during the
preliminary investigation, the Court agrees that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused
to sustain the allegation in the information. The motion to withdraw Information is, therefore,
granted." If you were the private prosecutor, what should you do? Explain. (2003, 2012 Bar)
A: If I were the private prosecutor, I would file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the
Court of Appeals (Cerezo v. People, GR No.185230, June 1, 2011). It is well-settled that when the
trial court is confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information (on the ground of lack of
probable cause to hold the accused for trial based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary), the trial
court has the duty to make an independent assessment of the merits of the motion. It may either
agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance alone on the resolution of
the Secretary would be an abdication of the trial court’s duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima
facie case. The court must itself be convinced that there is indeed no sufficient evidence against
the accused. Otherwise, the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion if he grants the Motion to
Withdraw Information by the trial prosecutor. (Harold Tamargo v. Romulo Awingan et. al. G.R.
No. 177727, January 19, 2010)
Q: Petitioner Fabian was appointed Election Registrar of the Municipality of Sevilla supposedly to
replace the respondent Election Registrar Pablo who was transferred to another municipality
without his consent and who refused to accept his aforesaid transfer, much less to vacate his
position in Bogo Town as election registrar, as in fact he continued to occupy his aforesaid
position and exercise his functions thereto. Petitioner Fabian then filed a petition for mandamus
against Pablo but the trial court dismissed Fabian’s petition contending that quo warranto is the
proper remedy. Is the court correct in its ruling? Why? (2001 Bar)
A: Yes, the court is correct in its ruling. Mandamus will not lie as it is a remedy that applies only
where petitioner’s right is founded clearly in law, not when it is doubtful. Pablo was transferred
without his consent which is tantamount to removal without cause, contrary to the fundamental
guarantee on non-removal except for cause. Considering that Pedro continued to occupy the
disputed position and exercised his functions therein, the proper remedy is quo warranto, not
mandamus. (Garces v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114795, July 17, 1996)
Q: In 1996, Congress passed Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the Voter’s Registration
Act of 1996, providing for computerization of elections. Pursuant thereto, the COMELEC
approved the Voter’s Registration and Identification System (VRIS) Project. It issued invitations
to pre-qualify and bid for the project. After the public bidding, Fotokina was declared the winning
bidder with a bid of P6 billion and was issued a Notice of Award. But COMELEC Chairman
Gener Go objected to the award on the ground that under the appropriations Act, the budget for the
COMELEC’s modernization is only P1 billion. He announced to the public that the VRIS project
has been set aside. Two Commissioners sided with Chairman Go, but the majority voted to uphold
the contract. Meanwhile, Fotokina filed with the RTC a petition for mandamus to compel the
COMELEC to implement the contract. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing
Chairman Go, opposed the petition on the ground that mandamus does not lie to enforce
contractual obligations. During the proceedings, the majority Commissioners filed a manifestation
that Chairman Go was not authorized by the COMELEC En Banc to oppose the petition. Is a
petition for mandamus an appropriate remedy to enforce contractual obligations? (1999, 2006 Bar)
A: No, the petition for mandamus is not an appropriate remedy because it is not available to
enforce a contractual obligation. Mandamus is directed only to ministerial acts, directing or
commanding a person to do a legal duty. (COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 152992,
September 18, 2002; Sec. 3, Rule 65)

Q: After plaintiff in an ordinary civil action before the RTC, ZZ has completed presentation of his Q: A files a Complaint against B for recovery of title and possession of land situated in Makati
evidence, defendant without prior leave of court moved for dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for with the RTC of Pasig. B files a Motion to Dismiss for improper venue. The RTC Pasig Judge
insufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence. After due hearing of the motion and the opposition thereto, denies B's Motion to Dismiss, which obviously was incorrect. Alleging that the RTC Judge
the court issued an order, reading as follows: ―The Court hereby grants defendant’s motion to "unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
dismiss and accordingly orders the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, with the costs taxed against resulting from an office," A files a Petition for mandamus against the judge. Will mandamus lie?
him. It is so ordered.‖ Is the order of dismissal valid? May plaintiff properly take an appeal? Reasons. (2012 Bar)
Reason. (2004 Bar) A: The order or decision is void because it does not state findings of fact and A: No, mandamus will not lie. The proper remedy is a petition for prohibition (Serena v.
of law, as required by Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution and Sec. 1, Rule 36. Being void, Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008). The dismissal of the case based on improper
appeal is not available. The proper remedy is certiorari under Rule 65. venue is not a ministerial duty. Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of a
discretionary duty. (Paloma v. Mora, G.R. No. 157783, September 23, 2005)
Q: Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in a decision
promulgated on September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a Motion for New Trial on
the ground that errors of law and irregularities prejudicial to his rights were committed during his
trial. On October 7, 2015, the private prosecutor, with the conformity of the public prosecutor,
filed an Opposition to Jaime's motion. On October 9, 2015, the court granted Jaime's motion. On
October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration. The court issued an
Order dated October 16, 2015 denying the public prosecutor's motion for reconsideration. The
public prosecutor received his copy of the order of denial on October 20, 2015 while the private
prosecutor received his copy on October 26, 2015.
a. What is the remedy available to the prosecution from the court's order granting Jaime's
motion for new trial?
A: The remedy of the prosecution is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, because the denial of a motion for reconsideration is merely an interlocutory
order and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy under the course of law. Be that as
it may, it may be argued that appeal is the appropriate remedy from an order denying a
motion for reconsideration of an order granting a motion for new trial because an order
denying a motion for reconsideration was already removed in the enumeration of matters
that cannot be a subject of an appeal under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
b. In what court and within what period should a remedy be availed of? A: Following the
principle of judicial hierarchy, the petition for certiorari should be filed before the Court of
Appeals within sixty (60) days from receipt of the copy of the order of denial of the public
prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration, or on October 20, 2015.
c. Who should pursue the remedy? (2015 Bar) A: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
should pursue the remedy. In criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or in
the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the people is vested solely in the Solicitor BAR MATTER 2024
General. Under P.D. No. 4478 among the specific powers and functions of the OSG is to
―represent the government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal
proceedings.‖ This provision has been carried over to the Revised Administrative Code
particularly in Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12 thereof. Without doubt, the OSG is the
appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases. (Cariño v. de Castro, 4BLUE 95 NOTES:
G.R. No. 176084, April 30, 2008)
For preventive suspension imposed by Ombudsman in administrative cases - if you want to
Q: The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder the provincial governor, vice cause the review of this imposition, you avail Rule 65 before the CA. Why before the CA?
governor, treasurer, budget officer, and accountant. An Information for plunder was filed with the Because of the doctrine of hierarchy of coourts. Why Rule 65? Because imposition of
Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for the treasurer who was granted immunity preventive suspension is immediately executory, meaning, wala nang iba pang available na
when he agreed to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case. Immediately, the speedy and immediate remedy sayo.
governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman claiming
there was grave abuse of discretion in excluding the treasurer from the Information. For determinations of Ombudsman in administrative cases other than imposition of
a. Was the remedy taken by the governor correct? A: No, the remedy taken by the Governor preventive suspension - you cause the review of these findings before the CA under Rule 43
is not correct. The petition for certiorari is a remedy that is only available when there is no (Fabian vs. Disierto).
plain, speedy and adequate remedy under the ordinary course of law; hence, the Governor
should have filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Besides, there is no showing that the All of these cases, except the Maglalang vs. PAGCOR case, were mentioned or cited by SC in
Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in granting immunity to the treasurer who the case of Gatchalian vs. Sandiganbayan (2018).
agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of the case.
b. Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the Ombudsman to include the treasurer in the
Information? (2015 Bar) A: No, mandamus will not lie to compel the Ombudsman to
include the treasurer in the Information. In matters involving exercise of judgment and
discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to in order to compel respondent tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the
manner or particular way discretion is to be exercised, or to compel the retraction or reversal
of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion. (Ampatuan, Jr. v. De
Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013) Evidently, the Ombudsman’s act of granting the
treasurer immunity from prosecution under such terms and conditions as it may determine
(Sec. 17, R.A. 6770) is a discretionary duty that may not be compelled by the extraordinary
writ of mandamus. Mandamus
 6

QUO WARRANTO
(RULE 66)

a proceeding or writ issued by the court to determine the right to use an office, position or
franchise and to oust the person holding or exercising such office, position or franchise if
his right is unfounded or if he had forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege.
Actions of quo warranto against corporations with regard to franchise and rights granted to
them, as well as their dissolution, covered under the former Rule 66 now fall under the
jurisdiction of Securities and Exchange Commission and are governed by its rules.
However, such jurisdiction was subsequently transferred to the RTC.
QUO WARRANTO MANDAMUS
Designed to try the right or title to the Applicable only in cases where the right to
office, if the right or title to the office itself the office is NOT in dispute
is disputed It seeks to enforce clear legal duties and
not to try disputed titles
GROUNDS
1. A person who USURPS, INTRUDES INTO, OR UNLAWFULLY HOLDS
OR EXERCISES a public office, position or franchise;
2. A pubic officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law,
constitutes a ground for the FORFEITURE of his office;
3. An ASSOCIATION which acts as a corporation within the Philippines
without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
WHO MAY COMMENCE
1. Government through Solicitor General or Public prosecutor;
(if commence by solgen or prosecutor, as exemption, it is not necessary that
there’s person who is claiming a position)
When the action is commenced by the Solicitor General, the petition may be
brought in the:
a. Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila;
b. Court of Appeals; or
c. Supreme Court. (Sec. 7, Rule 66)
2. Individual claiming to be entitled to the office or position usurped or
unlawfully held or exercised by another.
Q: In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to
the Supreme Court (Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the appointment was
announced, several groups questioned his qualification to the position on the ground that
he was not a natural born Filipino citizen. In the same year, the Court issued an Order
enjoining him from accepting the appointment or assuming the position and discharging
the functions of his office until he is able to successfully complete all the necessary steps
to show that he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. He, however, continued to
exercise his functions as CA Justice. Since the qualification of a natural born citizen
applies as well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a practicing lawyer, asked the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), through a verified request, to initiate a quo warranto proceeding
against J. Dong in the latter’s capacity as incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to
initiate the action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong’s citizenship was still being
litigated in another case. When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto proceeding,
Atty. Dacio filed a petition for certiorari against the OSG, and certiorari and prohibition
against J. Dong. The petition for certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG
committed grave abuse of discretion when it deferred the filing of a quo warranto
proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong
asked the Court to order him to cease and desist from further exercising his powers, duties
and responsibilities as CA Justice. In both instances, Atty. Dacio relied on the fact that at
the time of J. Dong’s appointment as CA Justice, J. Dong’s birth certificate indicated that
he was a Chinese citizen and his bar records showed that he was a naturalized Filipino
citizen.
(a) May the OSG be compelled, in an action for certiorari, to initiate a quo warranto
proceeding against J. Dong? A:No. The OSG has the discretion in determining the
presence of the requisites for a quo warranto proceeding. Besides, there is already a
pending case for the purpose of determining citizenship. For a quo warranto proceeding to
be successful the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested office.
(Topacio v. Associate Justice Ong, G.R. No. 179895, 18 December 2008)
(b) Does Atty. Dacio have the legal personality to initiate the action for certiorari and
prohibition against J. Dong? (2018 Bar) A: No. He is not clothed with legal interest.
Sections 1 and 2, Rule 65 state that only an aggrieved party may file petitions for certiorari
and prohibition in the appropriate court. An ―aggrieved party‖ is one who was a party to
the original proceedings that gave rise to the original action for certiorari under Rule 65.
(Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices v. Chionlo-Sia, G.R. No. 181186, 3
February 2016) In this case, since there is no ―original proceeding‖ before J. Dong where
Atty. Dacio is a party. Atty. Dacio cannot be considered an ―aggrieved party‖ for purposes
of Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65. Atty. Dacio therefore, has no legal personality to file the
same.

If plaintiff’s right to file the complaint is not proven, it becomes unnecessary

Q: A group of businessmen formed an association in Cebu City calling itself Cars C to
for the court to pass upon the right of the defendant who has a perfect right to
distribute/sell cars in said city. It did not incorporate itself under the law nor did it have
the undisturbed possession of his office. HOWEVER, if complaint is brought
any government permit or license to conduct its business as such. The Solicitor General
the Sol. Gen. or public prosecutor, the Court may pass upon the defendant’s
filed before a RTC in Manila a verified petition for quo warranto questioning and seeking
right to office.
to stop the operations of Cars Co. The latter filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
ground of improper venue claiming that its main office and operation are in Cebu City and
An action of quo warranto is filed prematurely when the nature of the
not in Manila. Is the contention of Cars Co. correct? Why? (2001 Bar)
position is yet to be adjudged under a review on certiorari action in the CA
A: No. As expressly provided in the Rules, when the Solicitor General commences the
as to whether it is of a de facto or de jure capacity. This also constitutes
action for quo warranto, it may be brought in a RTC in the city of Manila, as in this case,
forum shopping. (Feliciano v. Villasin, G.R. No. 174929, 2008)
in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court. (Sec. 7, Rule 66)
Where the Action is Brought if the Action is Commenced by Other Persons
a. Supreme Court;
b. Court of Appeals; or
c. Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area where the respondent or any of the respondents
reside. (Sec. 7, Rule 66)

4blue95:you cannot file if you’re not a challenger to the seat.

QUO WARRANTO
IN ELECTORAL
PROCEEDINGS
To contest the right of an elected public
office to hold public office
CLASSIFICATION OF QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS
1. MANDATORY – brought by the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when:
a.Directed by the President; An electoral proceeding under the
b.Upon complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that the case Omnibus Elections exclusive purpose of
for quo warranto can be established by proof. impugning the election of a public officer
on the ground of ineligibility or
2. DISCRETIONARY – Brought by the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor at disqualification to hold the office
the request or upon the relation of another person provided there must be: Petition must be filed w/in 10 days from
a. Leave of court; the proclamation of the candidate
b. Indemnity bond.
May be filed by any registered candidate
VENUE for the same office and, who, even if the
 Where respondent resides. petition prospers, would not be entitled to
 If commenced by Solicitor General, it must be filed with the RTC of Manila, that office
CA, or SC. Actual or compensatory damages are
recoverable in quo warranto proceedings
Section 8. Period for pleadings and proceedings may be reduced; action given precedence under the Omnibus Election Code
QUO WARRANTO
UNDER RULE 66
Prerogative writ by which that govt. can
call upon any person to show by what title
he holds a public office or exercises a
public franchise
Three grounds; usurpation, forfeiture, or
illegal association
(transcribe by: 4 BLUE 95)
Presupposes that the respondent is already
actually holding office and action must be
commenced within one year from cause of
ouster or right of petitioner to hold office
arose
The petitioner must be the government or
the person entitled to the office and who
would assume the same if his action
succeeds
Person adjudged entitled to the office may
also bring an action (separate) against the
respondent to recover damages

4blue95: if queston is eligibility of candidates then it is quo warranto, but if question is no.
of voters then it is election protest.
 7

PERIODS FOR INSTITUTING QW:

1.Against public officers/employee for his ouster from office- w/in 1 yr from ouster

2.Action for damages by persons entitled to office – W/IN 1 YR AFTER ENTRY

OF JUDGMENT establishing his right to office

3.Against corporations- w/in 5 yrs after act complained was committed.

(BAR) V was director and L the assistant. V met an accident, so L took over. After 7
mos, L refused to relinquish position. What judicial remedy may V avail?Quo
Warranto since L asserts right of office under some color of law. Had L merely
usurped w/o claiming right to it, then remedy would be mandamus. V may bring
action anytime during period L refuses to turn over the office.

(BAR)Does V have to bring matter to the Office of the Sec of Agriculture, then to
President for administrative remedy before he goes to court? NO, question is to
whether L is entitled to seat as director is a legal question.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS ADJUDGED ENTITLED TO THE OFFICE

1. take upon himself the execution of the office.

2. demand from respondent all the books and papers appertaining to
the office.
 Respondent’s neglect or refusal is punishable by
contempt
3. Bring an action for damages against respondent sustained by him
reason of the usurpation.
 Must be commenced within 1 YEAR after the entry for
the judgment, establishing the petitioner’s right to the
office in question .

2022 NOTE: in quo warranto proceeding, no one is compelled to resort to

administrative remedies since public interest requires that the right to public
office should be determined as speedily as possible. (Palma-Fernandez vs.
Dela Paz, 16 SCRA 751)

4blue95: Rule 66 of the Rules of Court does not apply to quo warranto cases
against persons who usurp an office in a private corporation. (Calleja v.
Panday, G.R. No. 168696, 2006)

Distinctions between Quo Warranto in elective and in appointive office.

1. In an elective office: the issue is eligibility of the officer-elect; the court or tribunal
cannot declare the protestant (or the candidate who obtained the second highest number of
votes) as having been elected.

2. In an appointive office: the issue is the legality of the appointment, the court determines
who of the parties has legal title to the office