WRIT OF

CONTINUING MANDAMUS
Siel, Templonuevo, and Velasquez
Mandamus
In general, MANDAMUS is employed to compel the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty and not
a discretionary duty.
MANDAMUS lies to command the doing of what ought to be
done, and not to undo what has been done
Requisites for the issuance:
1. The aggrieved person must have a legal right that is denied by the
respondent by not performing an act that he is assigned to do
officially or by doing it improperly.
2. The right in question must be judicially enforceable.
3. The respondent cannot be forced to do something which does not
come under the ambit of his official duty, which is public in
nature. So, the writ of mandamus is issued against judicial bodies
and public authorities, who are assigned with statutory duties.
Types of Mandamus
ALTERNATIVE MANDAMUS
commands the respondent to perform an act, or appear before the
court on the specified date, to show cause why he is unable to
perform the same
PEREMPTORY MANDAMUS
a final order to the respondent to perform the act (such as when
the respondent fails to comply with the first mandamus)
CONTINUING MANDAMUS
usually issued in public interest, in order to prevent miscarriage of
justice
commands the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the
judgment is fully satisfied
WHAT IS A CONTINUING MANDAMUS?

writ issued by a court in an environmental case

directing any agency or instrumentality of the
government or officer thereof to perform an act or series
of acts decreed by final judgment
which shall remain effective until judgment is fully
satisfied
It permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment
in order to ensure the successful implementation of the
reliefs mandated under the courts decision.
Grounds in order to avail of a Writ of
Continuing Mandamus
A person may file a verified petition for a Writ of
Continuing Mandamus when any of the following instances
are present:
1. When the respondent either:
a. Unlawfully omits to perform a duty specifically enjoined by law,
arising from an office, trust or station, in relation to the enforcement
or violation of an environmental law, rule or regulation or a right
therein; or
b. Unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right;
and
2. There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law
Petitioner
Any person personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or
omission

Respondent

Any agency, instrumentality, or officer of the

government
Petition for continuing mandamus
Government/Instrumentality = unlawfully neglects performance
of their duty under the law in connection with environmental
law
the person aggrieved may file a verified petition in the proper
court
alleging the facts with certainty
attaching thereto supporting evidence
specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law, rule or
regulation
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to
do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and
to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under
the law, rules or regulations.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-
forum shopping.
Where to file the petition

The petition shall be filed with the Regional

Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or
omission occurred; or
withthe Court of Appeals or the Supreme
Court.
No docket fees

The petitioner shall be exempt from

the payment of docket fees.
Order to comment

If the petition is sufficient in form and

substance, the court shall issue the writ and
require the respondent to comment on the
petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a
copy thereof.
Such order shall be served on the respondents
in such manner as the court may direct,
together with a copy of the petition and any
annexes thereto.
Expediting proceedings

The court in which the petition is filed may

issue such orders to expedite the
proceedings, and it may also grant a TEPO
for the preservation of the rights of the
parties pending such proceedings.

(TEPO Temporary Environmental Protection

Order)
Proceedings after comment is filed

After the comment is filed or the time for the

filing thereof has expired, the court may hear
the case which shall be summary in nature or
require the parties to submit memoranda.
The petition shall be resolved without delay
within sixty (60) days from the date of the
submission of the petition for resolution.
 Procedure for the issuance of the Writ

Petition for a Writ of Within 10 days from receipt of a

copy of the petition
Continuing Mandamus
Sufficient in form and substance?
Respondent files
a Comment
Court issues order:
Court
Issuing the Writ and
denies the
Petition
Require Respondent to Summary Hearing
Comment
Expiration of the
or orders: period to file a
Expediting the comment
proceedings and
Grant TEPO for the
preservation of right of
the parties pending such
proceedings
Procedure for the issuance of the Writ

Summary Hearing Additional Memoranda

Submit Petition for

Decision/Resolution

Within 60 days from

submission without delay

GRANT DENY
privilege of privilege of
the Writ the Writ
Judgment
If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the
writ of continuing mandamus requiring respondent to
perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully
satisfied and to grant such reliefs as may be warranted
The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic
reports detailing the progress and execution of the
judgment
Petitioner can submit comments/observations on the
execution of the judgment
Evaluation of the compliance may be done by:
1. The Court itself
2. Commissioner
3. Appropriate government agency
Procedure for the issuance of the Writ

Writ Granted
Evaluate compliance with
the Writ

Partial Return of the Writ Petitioner may submit

comments and observations
on compliance with the Writ

Enter satisfaction of
Final Return of the Writ
judgment
Return of the Writ
Partial Return
Shall contain the periodic reports submitted by the
Respondent

Final Return
Made upon full satisfaction of the judgment

Satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in

the court docket upon full implementation
of the judgment
Summary of Differences
CONTINUING MANDAMUS KALIKASAN
Subject Matter Unlawful neglect or Unlawful act or omission
exclusion
Who may File (Petitioner) One who is personally Any person, natural or
aggrieved juridical or
representative/agent
(peoples organization,
NGO, or public interest
group)
Respondent Government and/or its - Government and/or its
officers officers
- Private
individual/entity
Summary of Differences
CONTINUING MANDAMUS KALIKASAN
Docket Fees Both are exempted
Venue - Regional Trial Court - Court of Appeals
- Court of Appeals - Supreme Court
- Supreme Court
Discovery Measures None - Ocular inspection order
- Production order

Damages for personal Allows damages for Does not allow

injury malicious neglect of legal Remedy: File another suit
duty
Temporary Environmental Ancillary remedy
Protection Order (TEPO)
Metro Manila Development
Authority
vs.
Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48 December 18, 2008
Justice Velasco Jr.
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
On January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a
complaint before the RTC in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, for
the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay.

The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below
the allowable standards set by law, specifically P.D. No. 1152 or the Philippine
Environment Code. This environmental aberration, the complaint stated, stemmed
from:

x x x [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of omission or

commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and present danger to public
health and in the depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay, [for
which reason] ALL defendants must be held jointly and/or solidarily liable and be
collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B
waters fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
Many factors have contributed to the pollution and deterioration of Manila Bay,
namely, improper disposal of wastes by individuals and establishments, deposit of
toxic and hazardous substances and other ship-generated wastes from docking
vessels, deposit of debris, such as carcass of sunken vessels and other non-
biodegradable garbage in the bay, and improper treatment and disposal of fecal
sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks, among others.

Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to

clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action
for the purpose.

Petitioners asserted, among others, that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a
ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
The Supreme Court held that the cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be
compelled by mandamus. While the implementation of the MMDA's mandated
tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or
the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in
nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Under what other judicial
discipline describes as continuing mandamus , the Court may, under
extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring
that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or
indifference.
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like enabling statutes and
pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these government agencies are
enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions
relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and
preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform
these duties.
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
In particular, the Supreme Court ordered:

1. DENR to fully implement its Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal
Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of the Manila
Bay at the earliest possible time.

2. DILG to inspect all factories, commercial establishments, and private homes

along the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of
jurisdiction to determine whether they have wastewater treatment facilities
or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules
and regulations.
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
In particular, the Supreme Court ordered:

3. MWSS to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate

waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where
needed at the earliest possible time.

4. LWUA to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation

facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of
sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan
where needed at the earliest possible time.
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
In particular, the Supreme Court ordered:

5. DA, through the BFAR, to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila
Bay.

6. The PCG and the PNP Maritime Group to apprehend violators of PD 979, RA
8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed to prevent marine
pollution in the Manila Bay.

7. PPA to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and

dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the
Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
In particular, the Supreme Court ordered:

8. MMDA to dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other

encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other
applicable laws, and to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill, as
prescribed by R.A. No. 9003, within a period of one (1) year from finality of
the Courts decision.

9. DepEd to integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste management,

environmental protection, and like subjects in the school curricula of all
levels to inculcate the importance of maintaining a balanced and healthful
ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippine archipelago.
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
In particular, the Supreme Court ordered:

10. DBM to consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General

Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses
relating to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of
the Manila Bay.

11. The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH,
DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in
line with the principle of continuing mandamus, shall, from finality of this
Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the
activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.
Thank you!