SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
Outline based on Atty. Duano’s Book
Rule 62: Interpleader
Meaning of Interpleader –
The action of interpleader is a remedy whenever conflicting claims
upon the same subject matter are made against a person who claims
no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which in
whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants, comes to court and
asks that the persons who claim the subject matter, be required to
litigate among themselves, in order to determine finally who is
entitled to the thing. It is a remedy afforded to protect him against
double vexation.
How initiated –
By filing a complaint for interpleader.
Parties to the complaint for Interpleader –
Plaintiff-in-interpleader – the party initiating the litigation.
Claimants-in-interpleader – the defendants having a possible interest
in the subject matter of the case, however, they are plaintiffs and
defendants against each other as they are compelled to litigate their
several claims among themselves.
Jurisdiction and venue –
Jurisdiction –
MTC – where the value of the claim or the personal
property does not exceed PHP300,000.00 outside of Metro
Manila or PHP400,000.00 in Metro Manila or where the
value of the real property does not exceed PHP20,000.00
outside Metro Manila or PHP50,000.00 in Metro Manila.
RTC – if the value exceeds the above amounts or if the
subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Venue –
Governed by the general rules on venue, Rule 4 of the Rules
on Civil Procedure unless otherwise provided in the
particular rule governing the SCA.
Where the subject matter is a real property: in the court
which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Where the subject matter is a personal property: where the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiff resides OR where
the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides at
the OPTION of the plaintiff.
When Interpleader proper –
Indispensable element of interpleader –
Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter
are or may be made against a person who claims no
interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest
which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants.
Purpose –
To compel them to interplead and litigate their several
claims among themselves.
Interpleader as an SCA primarily governed by Rule 62:
Remedy of interpleader, as a special civil action, is primarily
governed by the specific provisions of Rule 62 and
secondarily by the provisions applicable to ordinary civil
actions.
Interpleader may be considered as a stakeholder’s remedy
to prevent a wrong, that is, from making payment to one
not entitled to it, thereby rendering itself vulnerable to
lawsuit/s from those legally entitled to the payment… In an
interpleader suit, however, a claim is … required to be in the
answer-in-interpleader, which is different form the
counter-claim, which is separately allowed under par. 2,
Section 5, Rule 62. (Bank of Commerce v. PDB and BSP)
Cases when proper –
1. When the lessee does not know to whom payment of
rentals should be made due to conflicting claims on the
property or on the right to collect.
2. Where personal property is seized under a search
warrant and it appears that the seizure will not be followed
by the filing of any criminal action, but there are conflicting
claims asserted over the seized property.
3. Where two parties were both laying their claims on the
check, petitioner asking payment thereon, and Go as the
purchaser or owner.
4. Adverse claimants under Section 17 of Act No. 2137
(Warehouse Receipts Law)
5. In case of a life insurance where the insured dies and
there is a dispute over who should receive the proceeds.
Cases when Interpleader NOT proper –
1. When conflicting claims are not against the plaintiff.
2. When conflicting claims are not upon the same subject
matter.
“Within reasonable time”- the period to file –
Filing an action of interpleader must be within a reasonable
time after a dispute has arisen without waiting to be sued
by either of the contenting claimants. Otherwise he may be
barred by laches (e.g. if a stakeholder defends a suit filed by
one of the adverse parties and allows said suit to proceed
to final judgment against him) or undue delay.
Interpleader and Intervention, distinguished –
INTERPLEADER (Rule 62) INTERVENTION (Rule 19)
1. It is an original It is an ancillary
Action
action. action.
M.R.A. LUMBRE 1
 It is commenced by nature of the property
filing a motion to and its assessed value.
Commence 2. It is commenced by intervene at any time
ment filing a complaint. before the rendition Remedy in Appeal the denial,
Case of Appeal the judgment. being a final order; or
of judgment by the
Denial File a separate action.
trial court.
Those who may
intervene: Court Order for conflicting claimants to interplead –
1. One who has a legal
interest in the matter The court shall issue an order requiring the conflicting claimaints:
of litigation, or
2. in the success of 1. To interplead with one another;
The stakeholder claims
either of the parties, 2. If the interests of justice so require, the court may direct in such
no interest whatever
or order that the subject matter be paid or delivered to the court.
in the subject matter
Who May 3. an interest against
or an interest which in (Section 2)
Commence both, or
whole or in part is not
4. is so situated as to Summons and accompanying documents –
disputed by the
be adversely affected
claimants. (Sec. 1) Summons served upon the conflicting claimants, with a copy of the
by a distribution or
other disposition of complaint and order. (Section 3)
property in the
custody of the court Motion to Dismiss; grounds –
or of an offer thereof. Each of the claimants may file a motion to dismiss – with the time for
(Sec. 1) filing an answer (15 days)
The defendants
Grounds:
(claimants-in-
interpleader) are The defendants are 1. Impropriety of the interpleader action; or
Who are
being sued to compel original parties to the
the 2. Other appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16. (Section 4)
them to interplead pending suits. (Secs. 1
Defendants
and litigate their and 3) Effect of filing MTD: the period to file the answer shall be tolled (Sec.
several claims among 4)
themselves. (Sec. 1)
If the MTD is denied: the movant may file his answer within the
1. Complaint-in-
remaining period, but which shall not be less than 5 days in any event,
intervention if the
1. Complaint-in- reckoned from the notice of denial (Sec. 4)
intervenor asserts a
interpleader;
claim against either or Impropriety of the Interpleader action as ground for
2. Answer;
all of the original
3. Counterclaims; dismissal –
parties; or
4. Cross-claims;
Pleadings 2. Answer-in- It is a broader ground compared to those under Rule 16.
5. Third-party
intervention if he
complaints; and Answer; other pleadings –
unites with the
6. Responsive
defending party in
pleadings thereto. Pleading to be filed: Each claimant shall file his answer setting forth
resisting a claim
(Secs. 1 and 5) his claim. (Sec. 5)
against the latter.
(Sec. 3) Period to file: within 15 days from service of summons upon him (Sec.
15 days from notice of 5)
the order admitting To whom answer shall be served: to the plaintiff-in-interpleader, and
Period to 15 days from service
the same unless a upon each of the other conflicting claimants, who may file their reply
file an of summons upon
different period is
Answer him. (Sec. 5) thereto as provided by these Rules. (Sec. 5)
fixed by the court.
(Sec. 4) Effect of failure to plead within time fixed: the court may, on motion:
To the plaintiff-in- To the intervenor who 1. declare him in default; and
To Whom
interpleader and upon filed the complaint-in-
Answer is 2. thereafter render judgment barring him from any claim in respect
each of the conflicting intervention. (Secs. 3
Served to the subject matter. (Sec. 5)
claimants. (Sec. 5) and 4)

Where to At the first instance Where the original Other pleadings to be filed:
File with the RTC or MTC action is filed. 1. Counterclaims;
depending on the
2. Cross-claims;

M.R.A. LUMBRE 2
3. Third-party complaints; and responsive pleadings thereto.
Conflicting Claimants as the party litigating –
In an ordinary civil action, except when the answer contains
a cross-claim, the defendants are not serving each other
copies of their answers.
But in an SCA for interpleader, each of the claimants are
being served with the answer – they are actually the parties
litigating the conflicting claims.
Counterclaims, cross-claims, 3rd party complaints,
responsive pleadings –
Effect of failure to set up a compulsory counterclaim in an
interpleader action: bars the right to raise it in a
subsequent litigation.
Determination/Adjudication of Rights –
After pleadings have been filed and pre-trial has been conducted, the
court shall proceed to determine their respective rights and
adjudicate their respective claims. (Sec. 6)
Docket, lawful fees, costs, and litigation expenses as liens –
1. Docket fees;
2. Other lawful fees paid by party who filed a complaint;
3. Costs; and
4. Litigation expenses:
shall constitute a lien or charge upon the subject matter of the action,
unless the court shall order otherwise.
Docket fee in Interpleader –
1. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may
allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time, but in
no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period.
2. Same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third
party claims, and similar pleadings, which shall not be
considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefor is paid.
Court may also allow payment of said fee within a
reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
Section 7 only pertains to the docket and lawful fees to be
paid by the one who initiated the interpleader action. Since
the defendants-in-interpleader are actually the ones who
make the claim, then to them devolves the duty to pay the
docket fees prescribed under Rule 141.
Rule 63: Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
Meaning of Declaratory Relief –
Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in
a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, executive order
or resolution,
to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the
instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute,
and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder.
The only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the question of
construction or validity of the provisions in an instrument or statute.
Remedies; Who may file petition –
Remedies under Rule 63:
1. Declaratory relief;
2. Action for:
a. the reformation of an instrument;
b. to quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom; or
c. to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil
Code. (Sec. 1)
How initiated –
By way of filing a petition for declaratory relief and other similar
remedies.
The parties who may file –
1. Any person interested in a deed, will, contract, or other written
instrument,
2. Or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation. (Sec.
1)
Effect of non-joinder of necessary parties –
It is NOT a jurisdictional defect.
Although it is true that any declaration by the court would
affect the squatters, the latter are not necessary parties
because the question involved is the power of the
Municipal Council to enact the Ordinances in question.
WON they are impleaded, any determination of the
controversy would be binding upon the squatters. (Baguio
Citizens Action Inc. v. The City Council and City Mayor of the
City of Baguio)
When to file; Jurisdiction –
Before breach or violation thereof bring an action in the appropriate
RTC. (Sec. 1)
Distinction between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of
Section 1, Rule 63 –
However, this refers only to the first paragraph of Section
1, being incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The 2nd paragraph of Section 1 specifically refers to an
action for reformation of an instrument, recognized under
Arts. 1359 to 1369, an action to quiet title under Arts. 476
M.R.A. LUMBRE 3
 to 481, and an action to consolidate ownership under Art.
1607 in a sale with a right to repurchase. Thus, under
Section 33 of BP 129:
MTC – where the value of the real property does not exceed
PHP20,000.00 outside Metro Manila or PHP50,000.00 in
Metro Manila.
RTC – if the value exceeds the above amounts or if the
subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Purposes of the action –
To determine any question of construction or validity arising from
the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for a
declaration of his rights and duties thereunder.
As affirmed by jurisprudence –
It may be entertained only before the breach or violation of
the statute, deed, contract, etc. to which it refers.
(Martelino v. NHMFC)
Requisites of the action –
1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, contract, or
other written instrument, statute, an executive order or regulation,
or an ordinance;
2. the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful
and require judicial construction;
3. there must have been no breach of the documents in question;
4. there must be an “actual justiciable controversy” or the “ripening
seeds” of one between persons whose interests are adverse;
5. the issue must be ripe for judicial determination;
6. the adequate relief is not available through other means or other
forms of action or proceeding. (Salazar v. COMELEC)
Justiciable Controversy –
Justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or
controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial
determination, not one that is conjectural or merely
anticipatory.
Ripening seeds, it is meant, not that sufficiently accrued
facts may be dispensed with, but that a dispute may be tried
at its inception before it has accumulated the asperity,
distemper, animosity, passion, and violence of a full-blown
battle that looms ahead.
Effect of absence of justiciable controversy –
The case should be dismissed, as the courts are not called
upon to resolve problems as a “pure academic
exercise.”(Aragones v. Subido)
Effect where the law of contract has already been
contravened –
Where the law or contract has already been contravened
prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the
courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action.
(Malana v. Tappa)
Action for declaratory relief after breach is
objectionable –
An action for declaratory relief after a breach of contract or
statute is objectionable on various grounds, among which is
that it violates the rule on multiplicity of suits. (De Borja v.
Villadolid)
Purpose of declaratory relief and may be entertained
only after breach – supra
3rd-party complaint is not proper when the main case
is declaratory relief –
In a third-party complaint, the defendant or third-party
plaintiff is supposed to seek contribution, indemnity,
subrogation, or any other relief from the third-party
defendant in respect to the claim of the plaintiff against
him.
Grant of affirmative relief in complaint for declaratory
relief –
In declaratory relief, the judgment does not essentially
entail an executory process.
However, the Court has held that although the action is for
a declaratory judgment but the allegations in the
complaints are sufficient to make out a case for specific
performance or recovery of property with claims for
damages, and the defendants did not raise an issue in the
trial court to challenge the remedy or form of the action
availed of, the court can grant such affirmative relief as may
be warranted by the evidence. (Adlawan v. IAC)
Subject matter of a declaratory relief are exclusive –
Expresio unius est exclusion alterius.
Petition for authority to remarry is a petition for
declaratory relief –
Since the issuance of an EO is not judicial, quasi-judicial, or
mandatory, certiorari or prohibition is an incorrect remedy;
instead a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 filed
with the RTC is the proper recourse to assail the validity of
the EO. (Galicto v. Aquino
Declaratory relief is the remedy to question acts
which are not judicial or quasi-judicial
SC appellate jurisdiction on the action –
Paragraph 2(a), Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution
provides:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
xxxx
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgment and orders of lower courts in:
M.R.A. LUMBRE 4
 (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
Similar remedies –
On reformation of instrument –
In order to express the true intention of the contracting
parties, an instrument already executed is allowed by law
to be reformed. The right of reformation is necessarily an
invasion or limitation of the parol evidence rule.
A suit for reformation may be barred by lapse of time. The
prescriptive period for actions based upon a written
contract and for reformation of an instrument is ten (10)
years under Article 1144. (Bentir v. Leanda)
Reformation of instrument and annulment of
contract, distinguished –
Reformation of an instrument presupposes a valid, existing
contract, in which there had been a meeting of minds of the
parties, but the instrument drawn up and signed by them
does not correctly express the terms of their agreement.
Annulment of contract, on the other hand, presupposes a
defective contract in which the minds of the parties did not
meet, or the consent of one was vitiated.
The equity of reformation is ordinarily limited to written
agreements, and its purpose is to establish and perpetuate
the true agreement; annulment, on the other hand, is
intended to declare the inefficiency which the contract
already carries in itself and to render the contract
inefficacious. (Veluz v. Veluz)
Requisites of reformation –
1. There must have been a meeting of the minds of the
parties to the contract;
2. the instrument does not express the true intention of the
parties; and
3. the failure of the instrument to express the true intention
of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct
or accident. (NIA v. Gamit)
On whose instance reformation may be ordered –
Reformation may be ordered at the instance of:
1. Either party, or his successors-in-interest, if the mistake
was mutual;
2. Otherwise, upon petition of the injured party, or his heirs,
and assigns. (Art. 1368, Civil Code)
When reformation is NOT proper –
Under Arts. 1366 and 1367 of the Civil Code, there shall be
no reformation in the following cases:
1. Simple donations inter vivos, wherein no condition is
imposed;
2. Wills;
3. When the real agreement is void. (Art. 1366)
4. When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce
the instrument, he cannot subsequently ask for its
reformation. (Art. 1367)
Substantive law on reformation –
1. Art. 1359 – reformation v. annulment;
2. Art. 1360 – principles of general law on reformation
adopted;
3. Art. 1361 – mutual mistake causes failure of instrument
to express real agreement, reformation may be allowed;
4. Art. 1362 – one party mistaken, other party acted
fraudulently in a way that instrument did not show true
intention, mistaken party may ask for reformation;
5. Art. 1363 – one party mistaken, the other knew/believed
instrument did not state real agreement but concealed such
fact, reformation allowed;
6. Art. 1364 – due to ignorance, lack of skill, negligence, or
bad faith on the part of the person drafting instrument,
instrument did not express true intention, may be
reformed;
7. Art. 1365 – parties agreed upon mortgage or pledge of
real or personal property, but instrument states property is
sold absolutely or with right of repurchase, reformation
proper;
8. Art. 1366 – cases where reformation not allowed, supra;
9. Art. 1367 – supra;
10. Art. 1368 – supra;
11. Art. 1369 – procedure for reformation shall be governed
by the ROC.
Quieting of Title –
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal
of any cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to
real property. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real
property or any interest in real property by reason of any
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding
that is apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in
fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and
may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
remove such cloud or to quiet title. (Heirs of Toring v. Heirs
of Boquilaga)
Requisites of quieting of title –
1. The plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title
or interest in the real property subject of the action; and
2. the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to
be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact
invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance or
validity or legal efficacy. (Eland Phil., Inc. v. Garcia)
M.R.A. LUMBRE 5
Substantive law on quieting of title –
1. Art. 476 – when quieting is proper;
2. Art. 477 – plaintiff must have legal or equitable title;
3. Art. 478 – other instances when quieting allowed;
4. Art. 479 – plaintiff to return all benefits received from
defendant, or reimburse expenses;
5. Art. 480 – principles of general law adopted insofar as not
in conflict with CC;
6. Art. 481 – procedure to be governed by the ROC.
Consolidation of ownership and effect of non-
compliance –
A judicial order is necessary to determine the true nature
of the transaction and to prevent the interposition of
buyers in good faith while the determination is being made.
(Aquino, 1990)
Notwithstanding Article 1607, the recording in the Registry
of Property of the consolidation of ownership of the vendee
is NOT a condition sine qua non to the transfer of
ownership.
The essence of a pacto de retro sale is that title and
ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in
the vendee a retro, subject to the resolutory condition of
repurchase by the vendor a retro within the stipulated
period. Failure thus of the vendor a retro to perform said
condition vests upon the vendee a retro by operation of
law absolute title and ownership over the property sold.
As title is already vested in the vendee a retro, his failure to
consolidate his title under Art. 1607 does not impair such
title or ownership for the method prescribed thereunder is
merely for the purposes of registering the consolidated
title. (De Guzman, Jr. v. CA)
Hearing is required in judicial confirmation of
foreclosure sale –
Settled is the rule that a foreclosure sale is not complete
until it is confirmed, and before said confirmation, the
court retains control of the proceedings by exercising a
sound discretion in regard to it, either granting or
withholding confirmation as the rights and interests of the
parties and the ends of justice may require. (Salazar v.
Torres)
The acceptance of a bid at the foreclosure sale confers no
title on the purchaser. Title vests only when the sale has
been validly confirmed by the court. (Raymundo v. Sunico)
The confirmation retroacts to the date of the sale. (Villar v.
Javier de Paderanga)
Lack of notice vitiates the confirmation of sale. The
mortgagor may still redeem the mortgaged lot after the
rendition of the order confirming the sale which is void for
lack of hearing and notice to the mortgagor. (Grimalt v.
Velasquez and Sy Quio)
Substantive law on consolidation of ownership –
1. Art. 1607 – need of judicial order in consolidation, supra;
2. Art. 1616 – what must be paid to vendee before vendor
can avail of right of repurchase (price of sale, expense of the
contract, other legitimate payments made by reason of the
same, necessary and useful expenses made on thing sold).
Notice on Solicitor General –
When to notify: In any action which involves the validity of the
statute, EO or regulation, or any other governmental regulation. (Sec.
3)
Who shall notify: the party assailing the validity of a statute, EO or
regulation, or any other governmental regulation, and shall be
entitled to be heard upon such question. (Sec. 3)
Local government ordinances –
When to notify prosecutor/attorney for local government: In any
action involving the validity of a local government ordinance, the
corresponding prosecutor or attorney of the LGU involved shall be
similarly notified and entitled to be heard. (Sec. 4)
When to notify Sol Gen: If such ordinance is alleged to be
unconstitutional, the Sol Gen shall also be notified and entitled to be
heard. (Sec. 4)
Court action discretionary –
The court, motu proprio or upon motion, may refuse to exercise the
power to declare rights and to construe instruments in any case;
1. where a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or
controversy which gave rise to the action; or
2. in any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary
and proper under the circumstances. (Sec. 5)
Exceptions (when not discretionary): In actions involving reformation
of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Art. 1607 of the Civil
Code. (Sec. 5)
Conversion into ordinary action –
Action for declaratory relief may be converted into an ordinary
action: if before the final termination of the case, a breach or
violation of an instrument or a statute, EO or regulation, ordinance,
or any other government regulation should take place. (Sec. 6)
How converted: the parties shall be allowed to file such pleadings as
may be necessary or proper. (Sec. 6)
Conversion of declaratory relief into ordinary action
when warranted –
In Quisumbing v. Garcia, the conversion of the petition into
an ordinary civil action was sustained by the SC on the basis
of Section 6, Rule 63.
Effect of failure to raise the issue –
M.R.A. LUMBRE 6
 However, in Martelino v. National Home Mortgage Finance
Corp., the SC did not allow the conversion of the petition
for declaratory relief and prohibition into an ordinary action
because the respondents did not argue the point before
the said Court.
Rule 64: Review of Judgment and Final Orders or Resolutions
of the COMELEC and COA
Scope of Rule 64 –
The rule shall govern the review of judgments and final orders or
resolutions of the COMELEC and the COA. (Sec. 1)
Mode of review –
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65. (Sec. 2)
Initiated by whom: the aggrieved party. (Sec. 2)
Where to file: Supreme Court. (Sec. 2)
Constitutional basis –
Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 7. Each commission shall decide by a majority vote
of all its Members any case or matter brought before it
within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision
or resolution. … Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
Review of final decisions or resolutions of COMELEC
en banc –
In Sahali v. COMELEC, the Court held that the power to
review election cases falling within the original exclusive
jurisdiction of the COMELEC only extends to final decisions
or resolutions of the COMELEC en banc, not to interlocutory
orders issued by a Division thereof.
Remedy to assail an interlocutory order by a
COMELEC division –
The remedy is to seek the review of the interlocutory order
during the appeal of the decision of the Division in due
course. (Cagas v. COMELEC)
Certiorari to SC assailing interlocutory order of
COMELEC division –
In a situation such as where the COMELEC Division
committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction in issuing interlocutory orders relative
to an action pending before it, and the controversy did not
fall under any of the circumstances mentioned in Sec. 2,
Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the remedy of
the aggrieved party is not to refer the controversy before
the COMELEC en banc, as this is not permissible under its
present rules, but to elevate it to the Supreme Court via a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. (Kho v. COMELEC)
Ratiocination why the case of Kho was not applied in
Sahali v. COMELEC –
The exception in Kho does not apply in Sahali since the
COMELEC First Division is authorized to act on the ex parte
motion for the technical examination of the said election
paraphernalia.
In Kho, the COMELEC First Division did not acquire
jurisdiction on the Answer with Counter-Protest since it was
filed beyond the reglementary period and, consequently,
did not have any authority to act on the issues raised
therein and all incidents arising therefrom.
Review of judgments and final orders of COA –
Decisions of the COA are reviewable by the SC, not via an
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, but thru an SCA of
certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65. (Reblora v.
AFP)
Decisions of COMELEC on disqualification may be
reviewed under Rule 64 –
Decisions of the COMELEC on disqualification cases may be
reviewed by the SC per Rule 64.
Time to file petition –
Timeliness of the petition: Within 30 days from notice of the
judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. (Sec. 3)
Effect of filing a motion for NT or MR: If allowed under the
procedural rules of the Commission concerned, the filing thereof shall
interrupt the period herein fixed. (Sec. 3)
Effect of denial of motion for NT or MR: the aggrieved party may file
a petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less
than 5 days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial. (Sec. 3)
Fresh period rule is NOT applicable in Rule 64 –
Rule 64 provides 30 days and Rule 65 provides 60 days
in reglementary periods –
Relaxation of procedural rules on the time to file a
petition under Rule 64 –
Where strong considerations of substantive justice are
manifest in the petition, the Court may relax the strict
application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of its
legal jurisdiction. (PPA v. Sargasso Corp.)
Docket and other lawful fees –
Upon filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of
court the docket and other lawful fees and deposit the amount of
PHP 500.00 for costs. (Sec. 4)
M.R.A. LUMBRE 7
Failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition. (Sec. 5)
Form of contents of petition –
Order to comment –
Effect if petition is sufficient in form and substance: the Court shall
order the respondents to file their comments on the petition within
10 days from notice thereof. (Sec. 6)
Effect if petition not sufficient in form and substance: The Court may
dismiss the petition outright. (Sec. 6)
Effect if petition is for delay or questions raised are too unsubsantial:
the Court may also dismiss the petition. (Sec. 6)
Comments of respondents –
Effect of filing –
Unless the SC shall direct otherwise, the filing shall not stay the
execution of judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed. (Sec. 8)
Submission of decision –
When petition considered submitted for decision:
1. Upon the filing of the comments on the petition, or of such other
pleadings or papers as may be required or allowed, or
2. The expiration of the period to do so. (Sec. 9)
Exception:
Unless the court sets the case for oral argument, or requires the
parties to submit memoranda. (Sec. 9)
Rule 65: Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus
Certiorari under Rule 65 –
Directed against: Any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions. (Sec. 1)
Under what circumstance:
1. When any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and
2. there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. (Sec. 1)
Who may initiate: A person aggrieved thereby. (Sec. 1)
How initiated: By a verified petition in the proper court. (Sec. 1)
What to allege: By alleging the facts with certainty and praying that:
a. judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of
such tribunal, board, or officer; and
b. granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
(Sec. 1)
What to accompany the petition:
1. a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject
thereof;
2. copies of all the pleadings and documents, relevant and pertinent
thereto;
3. a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of Sec. 3, Rule 46. (Sec. 1)
Writ of certiorari –
A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary prerogative writ that
is never demandable as a matter of right. (Angeles v.
Gutierrez) To warrant the issuance thereof, the abuse of
discretion must have been so gross or grave, as when there
was such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power
was done in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. The abuse must
have been committed in a manner so patent and gross as
to amount an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law. (Roquero v. The Chancellor of UP
Manila)
Instances in which certiorari will issue cannot be
defined –
The writ will be granted whenever necessary to prevent a
substantial wrong or to do substantial justice. (Heirs of Sps.
Reterta v. Sps. Mores)
Requirements of petition for certiorari under Rule 65
1. That the writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
2. That such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
3. That there is no appeal, or plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Equitable PCI Bank
Inc. v. Apurillo)
Motion for Recondition is a condition sine qua non;
exceptions –
The settled rule is that a Motion for Reconsideration is a
condition sine qua non for the filing of a Petition for
Certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the
court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to
it by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances
of the case. (CIR v. CTA)
Exceptions:
1. where the order is a patent nullity;
2. where the questions raised have been duly raised and
passed upon by the lower courts;
M.R.A. LUMBRE 8
3. where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of
the question and further delay would prejudice the
interests of the Government or of petitioner or the subject
matter is perishable;
4. where under the circumstances, an MR would be
useless;
5. where the petitioner was deprived of due process and
there is extreme urgency for relief;
6. where, in a 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 proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for
lack of due process;
8. where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object;
9. where the issue raised is one purely of law or where
public interest is involved.
Certiorari inherently requires the filing of a motion for
reconsideration –
Paramount consideration is strict observance of the
hierarchy of courts, emphasized in St. Martin Funeral
Homes v. NLRC, on “the judicial policy that this Court will
not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where
exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment
of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of our
primary jurisdiction.” (Philtranco Services Enterprises, Inc.
v. PWU-AGLO)
Remedy for dismissal by the CA of a petition via Rule
65 –
Unlike a petition via Rule 45 that is a continuation of the
appellate process over the original case, an SCA for
certiorari under Rule 65 is an original or independent
action. (RP v. Bayao)
Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari –
The following are the rules on original jurisdictions to issue
writs of CPM:
A. Supreme Court
Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. 1, of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
The Supreme Court has EOJ over petitions for CPM against
the judgment, final order, and resolutions of the following:
1. Court of Appeals;
2. Sandiganbayan;
3. Court of Tax Appeals;
4. Commission on Elections;
5. Commission on Audit;
6. Ombudsman in criminal cases.
B. Court of Appeals
Section 9 of BP 129 provides:
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The CA shall exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of CPM, habeas corpus,
and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs and processes,
whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
The CA shall exercise EOJ over petitions for CPM against:
1. Decisions, final orders, and resolution of the RTC;
2. Decisions, final orders, and resolutions of the NLRC;
3. Decisions, final orders of the Sec. of Labor and
Employment in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction;
C. Regional Trial Court
Sec. 21 of BP 129 provides:
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – RTC shall
exercise original jurisdiction:
1. In the issuance of writs of CPM, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, and injunction, which may be enforced in any part
of their respective regions; and
D. Sandiganbayan
“The SB shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over
petitions for the issuance of writs of CPM, 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 EO 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.
(Sec. 4, par. 4 of PD 1606, as amended by RA No. 8249)
COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction for certiorari in
election cases –
The Court recognized the COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari against all acts or omissions in
election cases. Indeed, in the recent case of Galang v.
Geronimo, the Court had opportunity to rule that a petition
for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a trial
court in an electoral protest (municipal) was within the
appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
Since it is the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the RTC in
election contests involving elective municipal officials, then
it is also the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to issue a writ
of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (Bulilis v.
Nuez)
Concurrent jurisdiction on certiorari and doctrine of
hierarchy of courts –
M.R.A. LUMBRE 9
The Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and the RTC
have concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari, subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts. (A.L. Ang Network v. Mondejar)
Policy on hierarchy on courts –
Remedies of appeal (including petitions for review) and
certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or
successive. (LBP v. CA) Hence, certiorari is not and cannot
be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one’s own
negligence or error in one’s choice of remedy occasioned
such loss or lapse. (Banco Filipino v. CA)

The Court emphasized that the concurrence of jurisdiction Where an appeal is available, certioriari will not prosper,
among the SC, CA, and RTC to issue writs of CPM, quo even if the ground is therefor is grave abuse of discretion.
warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction did not give
Appeal and Certiorari; distinguished –
petitioners unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
An undue disregard of this policy against direct resort to the
court will cause the dismissal of the recourse. (Dacudao v.
SoJ) APPEAL CERTIORARI

Meaning of “grave abuse of discretion” Where there is an

It is a remedy designed
error of law or fact - a
for the correction of
The abuse of discretion must have been so gross or grave, As to mistake of judgment -
errors of jurisdiction,
as when there was such capricious and whimsical exercise purpose appeal is the remedy.
not errors of judgment.
of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the (Sps Rempson v.
(LBP v. CA)
exercise of power was done in an arbitrary or despotic Lenjful Realty Corp.)
manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal The higher court uses
hostility. The abuse must have been committed in a its original jurisdiction
manner so patent and gross as to amount an evasion of a As to The CA exercises its in accordance with its
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty Manner of appellate jurisdiction power of control and
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. (supra) Filing and power of review. supervision over the
proceedings of lower
“Without jurisdiction” or excess of jurisdiction means courts. (Atty. Paa v. CA)
“Without jurisdiction” means that the court acted with
It is an original and
absolute lack of authority. (Alafriz v. Nable) independent action
“Excess of jurisdiction” is when the court transcends its that was not part of the
power or acts without any statutory authority. (LBP v. CA) It is a continuation of trial that had resulted
Nature
the original suit. in the rendition of the
Meaning of judicial function – judgment or order
complained of. (Sy v.
Judicial function is said to be exercised where respondent CSLP)
has the power to determine what the law is and what the
legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to Parties are the
determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights aggrieved party against
Parties to an appeal
of the parties. (Regalado, 1999) the lower court or
Parties are the original parties
quasi-judicial agency,
to the action.
Meaning of quasi-judicial function – and the prevailing
parties. (Paa v. CA)
Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to the
actions, discretion, etc. of public administrative officers or It may be directed
bodies… required to investigate facts or ascertain the against an interlocutory
Only judgments or
existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions order of the lower court
final orders, and those
from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise As to Subject prior to an appeal from
that the Rules of
Matter the judgment; or where
discretion of a judicial nature. (Midland Insurance Corp. v. Court so declare are
there is no appeal, or
IAC) appealable.
any PSA remedy. (Atty.
Meaning of adequate remedy – Paa v. CA)

A remedy is considered “plain, speedy, and adequate” if it

will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious
effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or
agency. (Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank)

Certiorari NOT the proper remedy if appeal is

available –

M.R.A. LUMBRE 10
 15 days from notice of 1. An SCA under Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be
judgment or final availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal,
order. (Sec. 3, Rule 41) especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one’s own neglect
Should be filed not later
Or where a notice of or error in the choice of remedies. (NIA v. CA)
than 60 days from
appeal and record of
notice of the judgment, 2. In case of errors in the appreciation of evidence, the remedy of
appeal is required,
order, or resolution. appeal is available. (ARBA v. Nicolas)
Period of within 30 days. A
(Sec. 1, Rule 65) If a
Filing petition for review
motion for NT or MR 3. Certiorari cannot be availed of to question acts which are not
(Sec. 1, Rule 42) and
was timely filed, period judicial, quasi-judicial, and mandatory. (Galicto v. Aquino)
appeal by certiorari
shall be counted from
(Sec. 2, Rule 45): 15 4. CPM a prohibited pleading under Sec. 22 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC
the denial of motion.
days from notice of (Rule on VAWC)
denial of decision or
motion for NT or MR. Appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not
MR is generally MR is not required alternative – supra
As to the
required prior to filing before appealing a
Need for an
a petition for judgment or final order.
Distinction between a final judgment or order and an
MR interlocutory order –
certiorari. (Paa v. CA)
A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a
case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in
A petition for certiorari before the RTC in an original respect thereto, and is appealable.
action –
An interlocutory order is one that does not finally dispose
Remedy in a petition for certiorari decided by the RTC of the case, and does not end the Court’s task of
A petition for certiorari before the RTC is an original action adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their
and the mode of appeal is by filing a notice of appeal under rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously
indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court.
Rule 41, Sec. 2a. (Yalong v. People)
It may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of
Judgment or final order which can be the subject of a an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final
petition for certiorari – judgment rendered in the case. (Heirs of Sps. Reterta v. Sps.
Lopez)
Section 1. Subject of appeal. – An appeal may be taken from
a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the Remedy to assail an interlocutory order –
case, or of a particular manner therein when declared by
1. An ordinary appeal from the adverse judgment on the
these Rules to be appealable.
merits, incorporating in said appeal the grounds for
No appeal may be taken from: assailing the interlocutory order. (Salcedo-Ortañez v. CA)
a. An order denying a motion for NT or reconsideration; 2. The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of
b. An order denying a petition for relief or any similar an appeal is an appropriate SCA under Rule 65, provided
motion seeking relief from judgment; that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. (Calderon
c. An interlocutory order; v. Roxas, citing Sec. 1(c), Rule 41)
d. An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
3. Proceed to trial. (Curata v. PPA)
e. An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by
consent, confession, or compromise on the ground of fraud, Application of the rule on “judicial courtesy” –
mistake, or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent; Judicial courtesy applies where there is a strong probability
f. An order of execution; that the issues before the higher court would be rendered
g. A judgment or final order for or against one or more of moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the
several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross- proceedings in the lower court or court of origin. It remains
claims, and third-party complaints, while the main case is to be the exception rather than the rule. (Go v. Abrogar)
pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and It is true that there are instances where, even if there is not
h. An order dismissing an action without prejudice. writ of preliminary injunction or TRO issued by a higher
court, it would be proper for a lower court to suspend its
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order
proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy. It is based
is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
on the hierarchy of courts. (Republic v. SB)
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. (Sec. 1, Rule
41) Errors of judgment and errors of jurisdiction –
Cases when certiorari NOT proper –

M.R.A. LUMBRE 11
An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in
the exercise of its jurisdiction.
An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of
was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to
lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible
only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
Certiorari as the proper remedy despite the
availability of appeal –
Certiorari can be availed of as the proper remedy despite
the availability of appeal, for two exceptional reasons:
1. the broader interest of justice demanded that certiorari
be given due course to avoid the undeserved grossly unjust
result that would befall the petitioners otherwise; and
2. the order of the RTC granting the MTD on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter evidently
constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess
of jurisdiction. (Heirs of Sps. Reterta v. Sps. Lopez)
Distinction between Rule 65 and Rule 64 –
The most patent difference between the two – i.e. the
exception that Sec. 2, Rule 64 refers – is Sec. 3 which
provides for a special period for the filing of petitions for
certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC en banc.
The period is 30 days from notice of the decision or ruling,
instead of the 60 days that Rule 65 provides, with the
intervening period used for the filing of any MR deductible
from the originally granted 30 days, instead of the fresh
period of 60 days that Rule 65 provides. (Pates v. COMELEC)
Three (3) material dates that must be stated in a
petition for certiorari –
1. The date when notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution was received;
2. The date when a motion for NT or MR was filed;
3. The date when notice of the denial thereof was received.
(Santos v. CA)
As a rule, perfection of an appeal in the manner and within
the period described by law is jurisdictional and failure to
perfect an appeal as required by law renders the judgment
final and executory. (Mabuhay v. NLRC)
Rule on substantial compliance with the
requirements of Section 3, Rule 46 –
The Supreme Court held that the mention of the parties’
respective counsel’s addresses constitutes substantial
compliance with the requirements of Sec. 3, Rule 46. The
observation finds support in Sec. 2, Rule 13 which provides
that “if any party has appeared by counsel, service upon
him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless
service upon the party himself is ordered by the Court.”
(Santos v. Litton Mills, Inc.)
Notice or service made upon a party who is represented by
counsel is a nullity. Notice to the client and not to his
counsel of record is not notice in law. (Garricho v. CA)
Procedural flaw on the petition merit its outright
dismissal –
Sec. 4 of Rule 7 provides that a pleading required to be
verified which contains a verification based on “information
and belief” or “knowledge, information, and belief” shall be
treated as an unsigned pleading. It produces no legal effect,
subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency
to be remedied. (NOPA v. Presiding Judge of RTC-Negros
Occ.)
Factual determination in certiorari –
In an SCA for certiorari, the CA has ample authority to make
its own factual determination,… or to receive new evidence
and perform any act necessary to resolve factual issues.
(Maralit v. PNB)
Section 9 of BP 129, as amended, states that the “CA shall
have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive
evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve
factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and
appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or further proceedings.
It has been said that a wide breadth of discretion is granted
a court of justice in certiorari proceedings. The cases in
which certiorari will issue cannot be defined, because to do
so would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and
usefulness. (Gutib v. CA)
SCA for certiorari in ADR –
Certiorari to the CA allowed, Rule 19.26, AM No. 07-11-08.
Certiorari and prohibition are appropriate
remedies to raise constitutional issues –
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate
remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or
prohibit or nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and
executive officials. Thus, even if the petition was
denominated as one for prohibition, public respondent did
not err in treating it also as one for certiorari and taking
cognizance of the controversy. (Ermita v. Aldecoa-Delorino)
Petition for Prohibition –
Directed against: Any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person
(TCBOP) whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
functions. (Sec. 2)
Under what circumstance: When the proceedings of any TCBOP),
whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions are:
1. without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
M.R.A. LUMBRE 12
2. there is no appeal, or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. (Sec. 2)
Who may initiate: A person aggrieved thereby. (Sec. 2)
How to initiate: By filing a verified petition in the proper court. (Sec.
2)
What to allege in petition: By alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that:
1. judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from
further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or
2. otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require. (Sec. 2)
What to accompany the petition:
1. a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject
thereof;
2. copies of all the pleadings and documents, relevant and pertinent
thereto;
3. a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of Sec. 3, Rule 46. (Sec. 2)
Nature of Prohibition as a remedy –
Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial function, but
not against legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Where
the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, the remedy
is an ordinary action for its nullification, which falls under
the jurisdiction of the RTC. (Holy Spirit Homeowners Ass’n
v. Defensor)
Requisites of writs of prohibition –
1. The impugned act must be that of a “tribunal,
corporation, board, officer, or person, whether exercising
judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions; and
2. there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
Prohibition as an appropriate remedy to raise
constitutional issues –
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate
remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or
prohibit or nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and
executive officials. (supra)
Petition for Mandamus –
Directed against: Any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person
(TCBOP). (Sec. 3)
Under what circumstances:
When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person:
1. unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station;
or
2. unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a
right or office to which such other is entitled; and
3. there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. (Sec. 3)
Who can initiate: The person aggrieved thereby. (Sec. 3)
How to initiate: By filing a verified petition in the proper court. (Sec.
3)
What to allege in the petition:
1. by alleging the facts with certainty; and
2. praying that judgment be rendered 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
3. to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent.
4. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum
shopping as provided in Sec. 3, Rule 46. (Sec. 3)
Nature and office of the remedy of mandamus –
It is used to merely compel action and to coerce the
performance of a pre-existing duty. (High, p.11) In fact, a
doctrine well-settled in our jurisprudence is that
mandamus will issue only when the petitioner has a clear,
legal right to the performance of the act sought to be
compelled and the respondent has an imperative duty to
perform the same. (MIAA v. RVLHAI, Inc.)
Meaning of purely ministerial act or duty –
A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or
tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,
without regard to or the exercise of its own judgment
upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The duty
is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the
exercise of official discretion or judgment. (PHILCOA v.
F’rimex Coco Products, Inc.)
Mandamus, meaning –
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of
competent jurisdiction, in the name of the State or the
sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or
board, or to some corporation or person requiring the
performance of a particular duty therein specified, which
duty results from the official station of the party to whom
the writ is directed or from operation of law. (Abaga v.
Panes) Literally, “we command.” (Black’s Law Dict., 5th ed.)
Two (2) situations when a writ of mandamus may
issue –
When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person:
1. unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station; or
M.R.A. LUMBRE 13
2. unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment
of a right or office to which such other is entitled. (supra)
Requisites of mandamus –
1. The petitioner must show a clear, legal right to the act
demanded;
2. respondent must have the duty to perform the act
Mandamus and prohibition, distinguished –
because the same is mandated by law;
3. respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of the
duty enjoined by law;
4. the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary;
and
5. there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. (Sec. 3)
Discretionary and ministerial act, distinguished –
Discretion, when applied to public functionaries, means a
power or right conferred upon them by law or acting
officially, under certain circumstances, uncontrolled by the
judgment or conscience of others.
A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or
tribunal performs a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,
without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon
the propriety or impropriety of the act done. (Regalado,
1997)
Instances when mandamus shall prosper to compel a
discretionary act –
A judge’s decision to refuse to act on account of some
disqualification is not conclusive, and his competency may
be determined on an application for mandamus to compel
him to act. (Query of Exec. Judge Estrada of RTC-Malolos)
Rights are well-defined, clear, and certain in
mandamus – supra
Mandamus will never be issued in doubtful cases. (Valdez v.
Gutierrez)
When mandamus NOT proper –
1. Petitioner failed to exhaust the available administrative
remedies, and because he failed to show that he was legally
entitled to demand the performance of the act by
respondents. (Special People, Inc. v. Canada)
2. Mandamus will not issue to compel an official to do
anything which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty
not to do, or to give the applicant anything to which he is
not entitled by law. (Tangonan v. Paño)
3. Mandamus does not issue to control or review the
exercise of discretion or to compel a course of conduct.
(Univ. of San Agustin, Inc. v. CA)
Petition for mandamus must be instituted by a party
aggrieved –
In Guingona v. COMELEC, the Court sustained the legal
standing of a citizen to initiate a petition for mandamus
anchored on the people’s right to information on matters
of public concern.
Mandamus has for its object to compel an inferior tribunal
in the proper case, to comply with a function which the law
specifically prescribes as a duty resulting from its office
when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.
Prohibition has for its object that of preventing an inferior
tribunal in the proper case, from executing or continuing to
execute an act in excess of its jurisdiction, when there is no
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
Prescriptive period for filing mandamus –
A petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles
to public office must be filed within one (1) year from the
date the petitioner is ousted from his position. (Galano, et
al. v. Roxas)
Declaratory relief treated as mandamus –
The Court has no original and exclusive jurisdiction over a
petition for declaratory relief. However, exceptions to this
rule have been recognized. Thus, where the petition has
far- reaching implications and raises questions that should
be resolved, it may be treated as one for mandamus.
(Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Phil.)
Exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies
for mandamus to lie –
When only a question of law is involved. (Valmonte v.
Belmonte)
When and Where Petition filed –
When to file:
1. Not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order, or resolution;
2. In case a motion for NT or MR is timely filed, whether
such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period
shall be counted from the notice of the denial of said
motion; (Sec. 4)
Where to file:
1. Supreme Court;
2. Regional Trial Court, exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a
lower court or of a corporation, board, officer, or person;
3. Court of Appeals, whether or not the same is in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction; or
4. Sandiganbayan, if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
M.R.A. LUMBRE 14
 5. Court of Appeals, if it involves the acts or omissions of a
quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or
these Rules. (Sec. 4)
6. COMELEC, exclusively in election cases involving an act or
an omission of a municipal or regional trial court, in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction. (Sec. 8, Rule 14 of the 2010 Rules
of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts
Involving Elective Municipal Officials)
Interpretation of the phrase “in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction” –
“In the aid of its appellate jurisdiction” means that if a case
may be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal or
body (to review, by appeal or writ of error, the final orders
or decisions of the lower court), then said court or judicial
tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary
writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.”
(Galang, Jr. v. Geronimo)
Period to file motion for extension absolutely not
prohibited –
That no mention is made in Sec. 4 of Rule 65 of a motion for
extension, unlike in the previous formulation, does not
make the filing of such pleading absolutely prohibited.
Thus, because of the lack of an express prohibition, the
Court held that motions for extension may be allowed,
subject to the Court’s sound discretion, and only under
exceptional and meritorious cases. (Domdom v. 3rd and 5th
Div. of the SB)
Respondents and costs in certain cases –
Requirement to join:
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/s:
1. the person/s interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court;
and
2. it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and
defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public
respondent/s affected by the proceedings. (Sec. 5)
Costs against whom: 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, TCBOP impleaded
as public respondent/s. (Sec. 5)
When public respondent to appear or file answer: 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. (Sec. 5)
Effect if case is elevated to higher court: the public respondents shall
be included therein as nominal parties. Unless otherwise specifically
directed by the court, the public respondents shall not appear or
participate in the proceedings.
Order to comment –
When to file comment: if the petition is sufficient in form and
substance to justify such process. (Sec. 6)
Contents of the order:
1. Requiring the respondent/s to comment on the petition within 10
days from receipt of a copy thereof;
2. To be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may
direct together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.
(Sec. 6)
In petitions for certiorari before the CA and the SC:
1. The provisions of Sec. 2, Rule 56 shall be observed;
2. Before giving due course thereto, the court may require the
respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss,
the petition.
3. Thereafter, the court may require the filing of a reply and such
other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and
proper. (Sec. 6)
Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief –
The court may issue orders:
1. expediting the proceedings; and
2. granting a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction for the
preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings.
Proceedings after comment is filed –
When to hear the case or submit memoranda:
1. After the comment or other pleadings required by the court are
filed, or
2. the time for filing thereof has expired. (Sec. 8)
When to render judgment: after such hearing or submission of
memoranda or the expiration of the period of filing thereof, and finds
that the allegations of the petition are true.
When to dismiss: Court may dismiss the petition if it finds:
1. the same to be patently without merit;
2. it is prosecuted manifestly for delay;
3. the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration. (Sec. 8)
Effect of dismissal: The court may award in favor of respondent
treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and counsel, in addition
to subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions under Rule 139 and
139-B.
Effect on erring lawyers: The court may impose, motu proprio, based
on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or measures for
patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari. (Sec. 8)
Service and enforcement of order or judgment –
M.R.A. LUMBRE 15
To whom order or judgment served: A certified copy of the judgment
shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial agency, TCBOP,
concerned in such manner as the court may direct. (Sec. 9)
Effect of disobedience to the order or judgment: punishable by
contempt. An execution may issue for any damages or costs awarded
in accordance with Sec. 1, Rule 39. (Sec. 9)

Cases originally filed in the CA under Rule 46

Refers to the rules on cases originally filed in the CA, such as original
actions for CPM and quo warranto under Rule 65, and annulment of
judgment under Rule 47. (Sec. 2)
Title of cases: the party instituting the action shall be called the
petitioner, and the opposing party the respondent. (Sec. 1)
To what actions applicable: original actions for CPM under Rule 65
and quo warranto under Rule 66.

M.R.A. LUMBRE 16