CERTIORARI, PRHOBIITION AND MANDAMUS; RULE 65 Not available under the Rule on Summary Procedure, petition for writ

of amparo, petition for writ of habeas data, small claims cases o Although a petition for certiorari is prohibited in cases subject to summary procedure, SC allowed the petition because the trial court gravely abused its discretion byB indefinitely suspending proceedings in ejectment cases, acting contrary to purposes of summary procedure

Certiorari Nature and purpose of remedy 65 is a special civil action. It is NOT a mode of appeal. It is an original action INDEPENDENT from the principal action which resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order complained of NOT intended to review the errors of judgment of the trial court. Judicial review DOES NOT go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value. Raising errors on judgment is proper only in an appeal IS a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment o If the court has jurisdiction and in the process committed an error in the exercise of its jurisdiction which error is only one of judgment, such error is reviewable only by appeal and not by certiorari May be directed against an interlocutory order Is granted to keep an inferior court [or quasi-judicial agency] within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction Remedy of last recourse Appeal Error of law or fact which is a mistake of judgment Invokes appellate jurisdiction Filed within the period for appeal (15 days from notice of judgment or 30 days where a record on appeal is required) Continuation of the original case Parties are the original parties to the case

Certiorari Correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction Invokes original jurisdiction of court Filed within 60 days from notice of judgment order or resolution Original and independent action Impleads tribunal, court, board or officer

Necessity of writ of injunction; certiorari not sufficient

Filing certiorari DOES NOT interrupt course of principal action nor running of the reglementary periods involved in the proceeding UNLESS an application for a restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction to the appellate court is granted

Duty of the court when a petition for certiorari is filed See Amended Section 7

Certiorari not substitute for lost appeal Certiorari not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence Existence and availability of the right to appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for certiorari is that there is no appeal

When certiorari is available despite the loss of appeal Certiorari may still be invoked when appeal is lost without the appellants negligence When public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates When the broader interest of justice so requires When the writs issued are null and void When the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority

Essential requisites for a petition for certiorari Directed against tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions o Thus, if board, tribunal or officer does not exercise either a judicial or quasi-judicial function, certiorari will not lie o Judicial function power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are and undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties o Quasi-judicial function applies to action of public administrative officers or bodies Such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion o There must be an allegation. Merely writing lack of jurisdiction is not enough o MUST be based on jurisdictional grounds o Excess of jurisdiction an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer, is not authorized and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting; NOT total absence of jurisdiction

o Without jurisdiction lack or want of legal power, right, or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes o Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility; Capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power There is neither appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding o The settled rule is that certiorari is not available where the aggrieved partys remedy of appeal is plain, speedy and adequate in the ordinary course of law the reason being that certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal, these remedies being mutually exclusive o The general rule is that the remedy to obtain reversal or modification of judgment on the merits is APPEAL. This is true even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of facto or of law. o BUT although the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not proper when an appeal is available, it may be allowed when it can be shown that appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of *Petitioner has burden of establishing the 3 requisites

Necessity for a motion for reconsideration Although the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for certiorari to lie, the rule is subject to certain well recognized exceptions Exceptions where the special civil action for certiorari will lie even without first filing a motion for reconsideration includes: o Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction o Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court o Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government or of the petitioner o Where the subject matter of the action is perishable o Where under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless o Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief

o Where in a criminal case, relief from order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable o Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process o Where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object o Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved How to avail of the remedy of certiorari Section 1, Rule 65 Foregoing rule speaks of two sets of documents to be attached to the petition o First set consists of certified true copies of the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition. Duplicate originals or certified true copies are thus appended to enable the reviewing court to determine grave abuse of discretion Non-observance is sufficient cause for dismissal o Second set consists of pleadings, portions of the case record and other documents which are material and pertinent to the petition. Mere photocopies may be attached

When to file Section 4, Rule 65 60 days from notice of judgment, order or resolution In case a MR or MNT is timely filed, 60 days will be counted from notice of the denial of said motion No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reasons and in no case exceeding 15 days

Certification against forum shopping Material date rule (3 material dates that need to be stated) Date when judgment or final order or resolution was received Date when a motion for new trial or a motion for reconsideration when one was filed Date when notice of the denial thereof was received

Court where the petition is filed RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area Court of Appeals Petition relates to acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, or officer or person 1. Whether or not the petition is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. 2. If it involves acts or omissions of a

Sandiganbayan COMELEC

quasi-judicial agency Whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction Election cases involving an act or omission of a municipal or regional trial court, in aid of COMELECs appellate jurisdiction

Parties to petition Filed by person aggrieved (person who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court) Where petition relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasijudicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join as private respondent with the public respondent, the person or interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court o Public respondent shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading UNLESS directed by the court

Relief Primary relief will actually be the annulment or modification of the judgment, order or resolution or proceeding subject of the petition. It may also include such other incidental reliefs as law and justice may require

Distinctions Certiorari under Rule 45 Although called a petition for review on certiorari, is a MODE OF APPEAL Continuation of the appellate process over the original case Seeks to REVIEW FINAL JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS Raises only QUESTIONS OF LAW Certiorari under Rule 65 Special civil action that is an ORIGINAL AND INDEPENDENT ACTION NOT a part of the appellate process May be directed against AN ITNERLOCUTORY ORDER or matters where NO APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN FROM QUESTIONS OF JURSIDCTION (purpose is to annul the proceedings of a lower tribunal and prevent an unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority) 60 days from notice of judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed and in case a MR or MNT is timely filed, 60 days from notice of denial of said motion

15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from; if MR or MNT is denied, aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period,

which shall not be less than 5 days from notice of denial Does not require a prior motion for reconsideration Stays the judgment appealed from Parties are the original parties with the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent without impleading the lower court or its judge Filed with the SC

Requires prior MR (as a general rule) Does NOT stay the judgment or order unless enjoined or restrained The tribunal, board, officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is impleaded as respondent Filed with the RTC, CA, Sandiganbayan, SC

When a rule 45 petition is considered as Rule 65 petition: where subject of recourse was one of jurisdiction or the act complained of was perpetrated by a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

Prohibition Nature and purpose of the remedy Extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person, whether exercising functions that are judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial to desist from further proceedings when said proceedings are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with GAD, there being no appeal or any other plain speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Purpose is to prevent an encroachment, excess, usurpation or assumption of jurisdiction on the part of tribunal, corporation, board or officer. It is granted when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice, or prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or multiplicity of actions Original and independent action

Requisites for a writ of prohibition Petition must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions Tribunal, corporation, board or person must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with GAD amounting to lack of jurisdiction There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Like a petition for certiorari, petition for prohibition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject of the petition, copies

of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto and a sworn certificate of non-forum shopping Distinctions Prohibition Directed to the court or tribunal directing it to refrain from the performance of acts which it has no jurisdiction to perform Prohibition Directed to judicial, quasi-judicial, ministerial act Directed to the court itself to restrain it from further proceeding Purpose is to command the respondent to desist from further proceedings Injunction Directed against a party to the action

Certiorari To annul a judicial or quasi-judicial act

Directed to the action of the court which is sought to be annulled Purpose is to annul or modify the judgment, order, resolution or proceedings of public respondent Tribunal, board or officer/person acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction No appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law

Mandamus Nature and purpose Extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person, to do an act required to be done: o When it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law o One unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled For mandamus to be issued, it is essential that petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required Principal function is to command, not to inquire, expedite or to adjudicate

Ministerial act or duty Demands no special judgment, discretion or skill. It is one in which nothing is left to the discretion and is a simple and definite duty imposed by law Hence, NOT to be used to compel the performance of a discretionary act Act must not only be ministerial but must also be a duty enjoined by law

As a rule, mandamus requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies available to the petitioner. Prior resort to exhaustion of administrative remedies however is not required where the questions raised are purely legal or when the respondent is estopped from invoking the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies

Distinctions Mandamus Special civil action Directed against a tribunal, corporation board, or officer Purpose is for tribunal, corporation, board or officer to perform a ministerial and legal duty To perform a positive legal duty and not to undo what has been done Mandamus Suit is brought against the person who is responsible for excluding the petitioner from office; respondent does not have to usurp, intrude into or hold the office Requisites The plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded. It will never be issued in doubtful cases o Mandamus does not establish a legal right, but merely enforces one that is clearly established It must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act because the same is mandated by law The defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law The act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Injunction Ordinary civil action Directed against a litigant For defendant either to refrain from an act or to perform not necessarily a legal and ministerial duty To prevent an act to maintain the status quo between the parties Quo warranto Brought against the holder of the office, who is the person claiming the office as against the petitioner, not necessarily the one who excludes the petitioner

QUO WARRANT; RULE 66 Nature and purpose of the action Literally means by what authority

Object is to determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the office Is a special civil action commenced by a verified petition against the following: o Person who usurps a public office, position or franchise o Public officer who performs an act constituting forfeiture of a public office o Association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority to do so If petitioner is private person, in his own name, he must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly being held by another

Quo Warranto under the Omnibus Election Code Under the Omnibus Election Code, a quo warranto proceeding may be instituted with the COMELEC by any voter contesting the election of any member of Congress, regional, provincial or city officer within 10 days after the proclamation of the results of the election. The ground relied upon shall be o Ineligibility to the position o Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines If petition against municipal official, the petition must be brought with the RTC If against any barangay official, petition must be brought before the MeTC, MTC, MCTC

Distinctions Quo warranto in an elective office Governing law is the election law Eligibility of the person elected Petition is filed within 10 days after the proclamation of the results of the election Brought in the COMELEC, RTC, MTC Petitioner may be any voter even if he is not entitled to the office When the tribunal declares the candidate-elect as ineligible, he will be unseated but the person occupying the second place will not be declared as the one duly elected because the law shall consider only the person who, having Quo warranto in an appointive office Rules of Court Legality of the occupancy of the office by virtue of a legal appointment Within 1 year from the time the cause of ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold the office or position, arose Brought in the SC, CA, RTC Petitioner is the person entitled to the office Court has to declare who the person entitled to the office is if he is the petitioner

duly filed his certificated of candidacy, received a plurality of votes Quo warranto Cause of action is based on the eligibility or lack of it of the candidate or his being disloyal to the Republic Quo warranto against corporations Petition may be brought only against a de facto corporation, not a de jure corporation o De jure corporation has no defect in its incorporation and exercises corporate powers because it was organized in full compliance with the laws o De facto corporation is one which in good faith claims to be a corporation, was organized in accordance and pursuant to a valid law, and assumes corporate powers because it was issued a certificate of incorporation. Election protests Cause of action is irregularity in the conduct of the elections