Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Case Title Promulgation Ponente Facts Issue Ruling


HUALAM October 16, DAVIDE, The Private respondent (State Investment House, Inc.)entered W/N a The Court disagreed with the opinion and
CONSTRUCTION AND 1992 JR., J.: into a Contract to Sell with Petitioner (Hualam Construction and certiorari may conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the
DEVELOPMENT CORP. Development Corporation)relative to a condominium unit be availed as a proper remedy to assail the orders of the MTC is
and TAN BEE GIOK, occupied by the latter in the respondents property. The said substitute for an ordinary appeal and not a petition for
petitioners, unit was payable in installments. appeal in the certiorari.
vs. case at bar?
However, despite repeated demands, petitioners failed and According to the Court, under the circumstances
refused to pay the accumulated downpayment, installments, obtaining in the case, the special civil action for
utility charges and other assessments mentioned in the Contract certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
to Sell.As such, the private respondent filed a complaint for could be availed of by the petitioners.
INC., respondents.
ejectment against the petitioners with the MTC of Manila.
Since the MTC granted the motion for execution,
The MTC rendered a decision in favor of the private respondent, the petitioners' ouster from the premises was
ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises of the unit they imminent. The appeal earlier interposed cannot
were occupying in the respondents property. then be said to constitute an adequate remedy
to prevent their ouster from the premises. They
Petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal before the MTC.
G.R. NO. 183409 cannot be confined or restricted to the sole
Private respondent filed for a Motion for Immediate Execution remedy of an appeal and simply wait for the
and the MTC grantedthe same. judgment thereon by the RTC.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied Under such circumstances, the appellate process
by the MTC.It directed the issuance of a writ of execution. would be too slow and the wait too long; it is
Pursuant to the same, Deputy Sheriff Justinianodela Cruz of the also evident that such mode of review would be
MTC (Branch 27)restored the possession of Unit No. 1505 to the inadequate and insufficient.
private respondent and simultaneously levied upon the
It is settled that although the extraordinary writ
personal properties of the petitioners found in the premises to
of certiorari is not proper when an ordinary
satisfy the money judgment decreed in the decision.
appeal is available, it may be granted where it is
Petitioners filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for certiorari shown that the appeal would be inadequate,
with injunction against the Hon. Jose R. Bueno, the Sheriff and slow, insufficient and will not promptly relieve a
the private respondent. They sought the issuance of an order party from the injurious effects of the order
enjoining the respondents from enforcing the writ of execution. complained of, or where appeal is inadequate
and ineffectual.

Prescinding, therefore, from the foregoing

discussions, it is clear that the dispositive
The RTC granted the petitioners petition and declared null and portion of the challenged decision of the
void the Orders issued by the Respondent Judge of the MTC as respondent Court is correct, except insofar as
well as the levy on Petitioners' personal properties. that portion reinstating the decision of the MTC
is concerned.
The Respondents were ordered to return to the Petitioners the WHEREFORE, the Petition DISMISSED for lack of
personal properties sold at public auction and to restore to merit and the Decision of the respondent Court
Hualam the possession of the aforementioned condominium of Appeals of 5 August 1988 is AFFIRMED subject
unit. to the modification above indicated.
Costs against petitioners.
The respondent filed a motion for RTC to reconsider said
decision, but the same was denied. Private respondent then
filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari.

The Court of Appeals found the respondents petition

meritorious and granted the same, reversing and setting aside
the RTCs decision. It reinstated the decision of the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Manila together with all subsequent orders issued

In ruling for the herein private respondent, the Court of Appeals

declared that the petitioners remedy is not a petition for
certiorari but an ordinary appeal. Since they had already filed a
notice of appeal, they should have prosecuted it. Also, a petition
for certiorari may not be availed of as substitute for appeal.

RULE 65 CASE No.11 January 13, PERALTA, Before the Court is a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for the
1. W/N We rule in favor of public respondent.
P/S INSP. SAMSON B. 2016 J.: Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of decision of
BELMONTE, SPO1 Preliminary Injunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court Ombudsman is The petition for prohibition filed by petitioners is
FERMO R. GALLARDE, seeking to prohibit the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and immediately inappropriate. Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of
PO3 LLOYD F. SORIA, Other Law Enforcement Offices from implementing its executory? Court provides:
PO1 HOMER D. Decision1 dated May 24, 2011 issued in OMB-P-A-07-1396-L 2. W/N
GENEROSO, PO1 SERGS finding petitioners guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposing the filing of writ of Sec. 2. Petition for Prohibition. - When the
DC. MACEREN, PO3 penalty of Dismissal from Service, together with its accessory prohibition is proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board,
AVELINO L. GRAVADOR, penalties. proper while officer or person, whether exercising judicial,
PO2 FIDEL O. there is quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without
GUEREJERO, and PO1 The instant case stemmed from a Complaint2 filed by Sandra Uy pending or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
JEROME T. Matiao against petitioners P/S Insp. Samson B. Belmonte, SPO1 motion for of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
NOCHEFRANCA, JR., Fermo R. Gallarde, PO3 Lloyd F. Soria, PO1 Homer D. Generoso, reconsideration jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other
Petitioners, PO1 Sergs DC. Maceren, PO3 Avelino L. Gravador, PO2 Fidel O. ( ombudsman)? plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
vs. Guerejero, PO1 Jerome T. Nochefranca, Jr., members of the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY Regional Traffic Management Office-7 (RTMO-7) as well as thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
OMBUDSMAN FOR THE P/Supt. Eleuterio N. Gutierrez, Regional Director of the Traffic court, alleging the facts with certainty and
MILITARY AND OTHER Management Group Region 7 (TMG-R7). praying that judgment be rendered commanding
LAW ENFORCEMENT the respondent to desist from further
OFFICES, OFFICE OF THE On May 24, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman issued the proceedings in the action or matter specified
OMBUDSMAN, assailed Decision finding petitioners guilty of Grave Misconduct. therein, or otherwise granting such incidental
Respondent. It ruled that Sandra presented substantial evidence, such as reliefs as law and justice may require.
hotel receipts, to support her allegations that petitioners
demanded and received favours from her as consideration for For a party to be entitled to a writ of prohibition,
G.R. No. 197665 the processing of the macro-etching examination of the subject he must establish the following requisites: (a) it
vehicle. Accordingly; must be directed against a tribunal, corporation,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents P/S INSP. board or person exercising functions, judicial or
SAMSON B. BELMONTE, SPO3 LLOYD F. SORIA, PO1 HOMER D. ministerial; (b) the tribunal, corporation, board or
GENEROSO, PO1 JEROME T. NOCHEFRANCA, JR., PO3 AVELINO person has acted without or in excess of its
L. GRAVADOR, SPO2 FERMO R. GALLARDE, PO2 FIDEL O. jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion;
QUEREJERO, PO1 SERGS DC MACEREN are hereby found GUILTY and (c) there is no appeal or any other plain,
of Grave Misconduct and are meted out the extreme penalty of speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
Dismissal from the Service, together with its accessory course of law. A cursory reading of the records of
penalties. Respondent P/SUPT. ELEUTERIO N. GUTIERREZ, on the case readily reveals the absence of the
the other hand, is hereby exonerated of the instant second and third requisites.
administrative charges. First, the Court does not find that public
respondent gravely abused its discretion in
Before the Ombudsman could resolve the said motion, issuing the subject Decision. Grave abuse of
however, petitioners elevated the matter to the Court by filing discretion is a capricious and whimsical exercise
the instant Petition for Prohibition on August 3, 2011, praying of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to
that the Court issue a Writ of Prohibition and Temporary an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the
commanding the Ombudsman to desist from implementing its power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
Decision dated May 24, 2011 ordering their dismissal from manner because of passion or hostility.
service pending resolution of their Motion for Reconsideration Petitioners, in this case, must prove that public
with said office or until remedies under the Rules and law have respondent committed not merely reversible
been fully exhausted. error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of
The Court notes, however, that on September 6, 2011, a month discretion is not enough; it must be grave.11
after the filing of the instant petition, the Office of the Court observes that in arriving at the assailed
Ombudsman issued an Order7 modifying its Decision by finding Decision, public respondent carefully weighed
petitioners guilty not of Grave Misconduct, but of Conduct the rights and interests of the parties vis--vis the
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and further evidence they presented to substantiate the
modifying the penalty from dismissal to suspension from office same. It ruled that Sandra submitted substantial
for a period of six (6) months and (1) day without pay. The evidence, such as hotel receipts, to support her
dispositive portion of said Order provides: allegations that petitioners demanded and
received favours from her as consideration for
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully the processing of the macro-etching examination
recommended that the Decision dated 24 May 2011, be of the subject vehicle. Thus, that public
RECONSIDERED and MODIFIED. Accordingly, this Office finds respondents ruling was unfavourable to
respondents P/S INSP. SAMSON B. BELMONTE, SPO2 FERMO R. petitioners interests does not necessarily mean
GALLARDE, SPO3 LLOYD F. SORIA, PO1 HOMER D. GENEROSO, that it was issued with grave abuse of discretion,
PO1 SERGS DC MACEREN, PO3 AVELINO L. GRAVADOR, PO2 especially so when such ruling was aptly
FIDEL O. QUEREJERO and PO1 JEROME T. NOCHEFRANCA, JR., corroborated by evidence submitted by the
guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service parties.
and are hereby meted the penalty of suspension from office for Second, petitioners filed the instant action when
a period of Six (6) months and (1) day without pay. If the penalty they clearly had some other plain, speedy, and
of suspension can no longer be served by reason of retirement adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A
or resignation, the alternative penalty of FINE equivalent to the remedy is considered plain, speedy and adequate
SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY salary of the respondents shall if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the
be imposed, and shall be deducted from their retirement or injurious effects of the judgment or rule, order or
separation benefits. resolution of the lower court or agency. As public
respondent pointed out, the remedy of a motion
Considering that the Decision of the Ombudsman is immediately for reconsideration was still available to
effective and executory, petitioners alleged that they were left petitioners, as expressly granted by the following
with no appeal, or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy Section 8 of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of
but the instant petition. According to them, their Motion for the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by
Reconsideration would not operate to stay the implementation Administrative Order (AO) No. 17:
of the Decision rendered by the Ombudsman. Thus, they stood
to lose their jobs unless the Decision is stayed by the Court. Moreover, the mere fact that the Ombudsmans
decision imposing the penalty of dismissal from
service is immediately executory, alone, does not
justify the issuance of an injunctive writ to stay
the implementation thereof.

The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the

Ombudsman are procedural in nature and,
therefore, may be applied retroactively to
petitioners cases which were pending and
unresolved at the time of the passing of A.O. No.
17. No vested right is violated by the application
of Section 7 because the respondent in the
administrative case is considered preventively
suspended while his case is on appeal and, in the
event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the
salary and such other emoluments that he did not
receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
It is important to note that there is no such thing
as a vested interest in an office, or even an
absolute right to hold office. Excepting
constitutional offices which provide for special
immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one
can be said to have any vested right in an office.
In view of the foregoing, therefore, the Court
cannot give credence to petitioners assertion
that given the immediate effectivity of the
assailed Decision, a Writ of Prohibition and
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction must be issued to stay the
implementation thereof. As clearly held by the
Court, they have no vested right which stands to
be violated by the execution of the subject

Even in the absence of such provision, the

petition is also dismissible because it simply
ignored the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. True,
the Court, the CA and the RTC have original
concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus. The concurrence of
jurisdiction, however, does not grant the party
seeking any of the extraordinary writs the
absolute freedom to file a petition in any court of
his choice. The petitioner has not advanced any
special or important reason which would allow a
direct resort to this Court. Under the Rules of
Court, a party may directly appeal to this Court
only on pure questions of law. In the case at
bench, there are certainly factual issues as Vivas
is questioning the findings of the investigating
In the foregoing pronouncement, petitioners
herein directly elevated the instant case before
the Court failing to advance any compelling
reason for the Court to allow the same. In fact,
they even raised issues concerning public
respondents factual findings, contrary to the
rule that parties who appeal directly to this
Court must only raise questions of law. It is clear,
therefore, that the Court has ample reason to
dismiss petitioners recourse.

Indeed, prohibition is a preventive remedy

seeking that a judgment be rendered directing
the defendant to desist from continuing with the
commission of an act perceived to be illegal. Its
proper function is to prevent the doing of an act
which is about to be done. When, however,
under the circumstances, the act sought to be
restrained can no longer be committed, resort to
such recourse is rendered futile for prohibition
is not intended to provide a remedy for acts
already accomplished.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
petition for Prohibition is DENIED.