Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

RULE 65 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Petition for Certiorari vs Mandamus
        
        Certiorari states AND granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require
        
        Meanwhile,
        
        Mandamus states OR granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require
        
        Includes Person
        
        Includes Ministerial functions, not just judicial and quas-judicial
  - - - PETITION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY
        
        CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT, ORDER or RESOLUTION SUBJECT THEREOF
        
        COPIES OF ALL PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS RELEVANT THERETO
        
        SWORN CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3(3) RULE 46
        The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (2a)
      - TO DESIST
    - - MANDAMUS
        Section 3. Petition for mandamus. –
        
        ANY TRIBUNAL, CORPORATION, BOARD, OFFICER, OR PERSON - When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
        
        UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTS PERFORMANCE OF ACT - unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
        (a) SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED BY LAW AS A DUTY RESULTING FROM OFFICE, TRUST, OR STATION - which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station
        
        OR UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDES ANOTHER FROM USE & ENJOYMENT OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
        (a) TO WHICH SUCH OTHER IS ENTITLED - OR unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled,
        
        NO OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW - and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
        
        FILED BY PERSON AGGRIEVED THEREBY - the person aggrieved thereby
        
        VERIFIED PETITION IN PROPER COURT - may file a verified petition in the proper court,
        
        ALLEGING FACTS WITH CERTAINTY - alleging the facts with certainty and
        
        PRAYING JUDGMENT BE RENDERED COMMANDING RESPONDENT, IMMEDIATELY OR AT SOME OTHER TIME SPECIFIED BY COURT - praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court,
        
        TO DO ACT REQUIRED TO BE DONE - to do the act required to be done
        (a) TO PROTECT RIGHTS OF PETITIONER - to protect the rights of the petitioner, and
        
        TO PAY DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PETITIONER - to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner
        (a) BY REASON OF WRONGFUL ACTS OF RESPONDENT - by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.
        
        PETITION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY:
        
        SWORN CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING UNDER SEC. 3(3) OF RULE 46
        The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (3a)
        
        TO DO
      - WHEN AND WHERE TO FILE THE PETITION
        
        Section 4. When and where to file the petition. – The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.
        If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
        In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 12, 2007.)
        
        RESPONDENTS AND COSTS IN
        CERTAIN CASES
        
        Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases. – When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
        Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public respondents shall be included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein. (5a)
        
        ORDER TO COMMENT
        
        Section 6. Order to comment. – If the petition is sufficient in form and substance to justify such process, the court shall issue an order requiring the respondent or respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may direct, together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.
        In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course thereto, the court may require the respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the petition. Thereafter, the court may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper. (6a)
        
        EXPEDITING PROCEEDINGS;
        INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
        
        Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. – The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding in the case. (7a)
        The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 12, 2007.)
        
        PROCEEDINGS AFTER COMMENT IS FILED
        
        Section 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. – After the comment or other pleadings required by the court are filed, or the time for the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear the case or require the parties to submit memoranda. If, after such hearing or filing of memoranda or upon the expiration of the period for filing, the court finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render judgment for such relief to which the petitioner is entitled.
        However, the court may dismiss the petition if it finds the same patently without merit or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. In such event, the court may award in favor of the respondent treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and counsel, in addition to subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions under Rules 139 and 139-B of the Rules of Court.
        The Court may impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 12, 2007.)
        
        SERVICE AND ENFORCEMENT OF
        ORDER OR JUDGMENT
        
        1 more item...
        
        INJUNCTIVE RELIEFS ARE MEANT TO PRESERVE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AND PREVENT FURTHER INJURY
        Injunctive reliefs are meant to preserve substantive rights and prevent further injury 102 until final adjudication on the merits of the case.
        (Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, [April 25, 2017], 809 PHIL 453-717)
      - WRIT OF MANDAMUS NOT ISSUED TO CONTROL DISCRETION OF A JUDGE TO COMPEL HIM TO DECIDE A CASE OR MOTION IN A PARTICULAR WAY
        It is an established principle that the writ of mandamus may not be issued to control the discretion of a Judge or to compel him to decide a case or a motion in a particular way the writ being available only to compel him to exercise his discretion or jurisdiction (Pio vs. Marcos, 56 SCRA 726 (1974)).
        The law concedes to Judges and Courts the right to decide questions according their own judgment and understanding of the law (Santiago Labor Union vs.. Tabigne, 17 SCRA 286, (1966)).
        Thus, in the case at bar, this Court cannot compel respondent Court to lift its Order of December 6, 1969 or to reconsider the same, for this involves the exercise of judgment and discretion. It can only compel respondent Court to act on the pending Motions one way or the other.|||
        (Philippine Airlines Employees Association v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. L-31396, [January 30, 1982])
        
        MANADMUS MAY LIE TO COMPEL ENACTMENT IF MUNICIPALITY FAILS OR REFUSES WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO EFFECT PAYMENT OF A FINAL MONEY JUDGMENT
        Where a municipality fails or refuses, without justifiable reason, to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance, and the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds therefor
        [See Viuda De Tan Toco v. The Municipal Council of Iloilo, supra; Baldivia v. Lota, 107 Phil. 1099 (1960); Yuviengco v. Gonzales, 108 Phil. 247 (1960)].||| (Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 89898-99 (Resolution), [October 1, 1990], 268 PHIL 215-223)
        
        MANDAMUS IS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OR SOVEREIGN
        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. 14
        (Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee)
        
        MANDAMUS WILL NOT LIE IF IT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL'S DUTY
        The writ of mandamus, however, 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 to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. 18
        (Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee)
        
        MANDAMUS WILL NOT LIE IF THE RIGHT TO BE ENFORCED IS IN SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE OR TO WHICH SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT EXISTS
        Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or as to which a substantial doubt exists, although objection raising a mere technical question will be disregarded if the right is clear and the case is meritorious. 19
        (Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee)
        
        REQUIREMENTS OF UNLAWFUL NEGLECT OR UNULAWFUL EXCLUSION
        As a rule, mandamus will not lie in the absence of any of the following grounds:
        [a] that the court, officer, board, or person against whom the action is taken unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station; or
        [b] that such court, officer, board, or person has unlawfully excluded petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled. 20
        (Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee)
        
        1 more item...
        
        LEGAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE ENFORCED IF THEY ARE NOT WELL-DEFINED, DEFINITE, CLEAR, AND CERTAIN
        Only specific legal rights may be enforced by mandamus if they are clear and certain. If the legal rights of the petitioner are not well-defined, definite, clear, and certain, 104 the petition must be dismissed. Stated otherwise, the writ never issues in doubtful cases. It neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.
        
        1 more item...
        
        MANDAMUS CANNOT ENFORCE PURELY PRIVATE CONTRACT RIGHTS
        Recognized further in this jurisdiction is the principle that mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations. 22
        Generally, mandamus will not lie to enforce purely private contract rights, and will not lie against an individual unless some obligation in the nature of a public or quasi-public duty is imposed. 23
        The writ is not appropriate to enforce a private right against an individual. 24
        The writ of mandamus lies to enforce the execution of an act, when, otherwise, justice would be obstructed; and, regularly, issues only in cases relating to the public and to the government; hence, it is called a prerogative writ. 25
        To preserve its prerogative character, mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in matters relating to the public. 26
        ||| (Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee, G.R. No. 176831, [January 15, 2010], 624 PHIL 200-211)
        
        NO PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW
        Moreover, an important principle followed in the issuance of the writ is that there should be no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the remedy of mandamus being invoked. 27
        In other words, mandamus can be issued only in cases where the usual modes of procedure and forms of remedy are powerless to afford relief. 28
        
        1 more item...
        
        MANDAMUS CANNOT ENFORCE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES IN WHICH
        PUBLIC HAS NO INTEREST
        This definition recognizes the public character of the remedy, and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no interest. 15
        (Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee)
        
        MANDAMUS IS PROPER TO ENFORCE PUBLIC RIGHT & TO COMPEL PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC DUTY, EXPECIALLY WHEN CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED
        The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most especially when the public right involved is mandated by the Constitution. 16 As the quoted provision instructs, mandamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. 17
        ||| (Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee, G.R. No. 176831, [January 15, 2010], 624 PHIL 200-211)
      - MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE AGAINST LEGISLATIVE & EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OR ITS MEMBERS ACTING IN EXERCISE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DISCRETIONARY FUNCTIONS
        Mandamus does not lie against the legislative and executive branches or their members acting in the exercise of their official discretionary functions. This emanates from the respect accorded by the judiciary to said branches as co-equal entities under the principle of separation of powers.
        (Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, [April 25, 2017], 809 PHIL 453-717)
        
        MANDAMUS WILL NOT LIE TO CONTROL DISCRETION OF OFFICER OR COURT WHEN HONESTLY EXERCISED AND WHEN SUCH POWER & AUTHORITY IS NOT ABUSED
        In De Castro v. Salas, 71 we held that no rule of law is better established than the one that provides that mandamus will not issue to control the discretion of an officer or a court when honestly exercised and when such power and authority is not abused.
        (Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, [April 25, 2017], 809 PHIL 453-717)
        
        EXCEPTION:
        CLEAR SHOWING OF GAD, MANIFEST INJUSTICE, OR PALPABLE EXCESS OF AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW MANDAMUS TO COMPEL ACTION IN MATTERS INVOLVING DISCRETION
        In exceptional cases, the Court has granted a prayer for mandamus to compel action in matters involving judgment and discretion, only "to act, but not to act one way or the other," 72 and only in cases where there has been a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority. 73
        (Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, [April 25, 2017], 809 PHIL 453-717)
      - CONTINUING MANDAMUS DEFINED
        Under what other judicial discipline describes as "continuing mandamus": 36 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.
        In India, the doctrine of continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.||| (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, [December 18, 2008], 595 PHIL 305-352)