RULE 65: CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

BY: RIEZYL REEN P. ANGAS

DEFINITION AND DISTINCTIONS
CERTIORARI
PROHIBITION
MANDAMUS
Certiorari is an
Prohibition is an
Mandamus is an
extraordinary writ
extraordinary writ
extraordinary writ
commanding a tribunal,
annulling or modifying
commanding a tribunal,
corporation, board or
the proceedings of a
corporation, board or
person, to do an act
tribunal, board or
person, whether exercising
required to be done:
officer exercising
judicial, quasi judicial or
a
When he unlawfully
judicial or quasi judicial ministerial functions, to
neglects the performance
functions when such
desist from further
of an act which the law
tribunal, board or
proceedings when said
specifically enjoins as a
officer has acted
proceedings are without or duty, and there is no other
without or in excess of
in excess of its jurisdiction,
plain, speedy and adequate
its or his jurisdiction, or or with abuse of its
remedy in the ordinary
with grave abuse of
discretion, there being no
course of law; or
b
When one unlawfully
discretion amounting to appeal or any other plain,
excludes another from the
lack or excess of
speedy and adequate
use and enjoyment of a
jurisdiction, there being remedy in the ordinary
right or office to which the
no appeal or any other
course of law (Sec. 2, Rule
other is entitled (Sec. 3,
plain, speedy and
65).
Rule 65).
adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law
(Sec. 1, Rule 65).
Directed against a
Directed against a person
Directed against a person
person exercising to
exercising judicial or quasiexercising ministerial duties
judicial or quasi-judicial
judicial functions, or
functions
ministerial functions
To correct an act
performed by
respondent
Purpose is to annul or
modify the proceedings

To prevent the commission

of an act

To compel performance of
an act

Purpose is to stop the

proceedings

Person or entity must

have acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of
discretion

Person or entity must have

acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of
discretion

Purpose is to compel
performance of the act
required and to collect
damages
Person must have
neglected a ministerial duty
or excluded another from a
right or office

Extends to discretionary
acts
Only against a
respondent exercising

Extends to discretionary and Only for ministerial acts

ministerial acts
Against respondents who exercise judicial and/or nonjudicial functions

judicial or quasi-judicial
functions

CERTIORARI
Q: What is certiorari?
A: A writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasijudicial functions whereby the record of a particular case is ordered
to be elevated for review and correction in matters of law.
Note: An original action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus is an
independent action. As such, it does not interrupt the course of the principal.
Note: A petition for certiorari must be based on jurisdictional grounds because as
long as the respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in
the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which
may be reviewed or corrected by appeal (Microsoft Corp. vs. Best Deal Computer
Center Corp., GR 148029, Sept. 24, 2002; Estrera vs. CA, GR 154235, Aug. 16,
2006).
Q: Which court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari?
A: The courts have concurrent jurisdiction, however, petitions are subject to the
rule on hierarchy of courts.
Q: Does the filing of a petition for certiorari interrupt the running of the
reglementary period?
A: No. The rule is the same for prohibition and mandamus since the remedies under
Rule 65 are independent actions
Q: Will the filing of a petition for certiorari interrupt the course of the
principal case? Or is an injunctive relief necessary?
A: The filing of a petition for certiorari against the lower court or tribunal or any
other public respondent does not interrupt the course of the principal case. It is
necessary therefore, to avail of either a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction to be issued by a higher court against the public respondent
so the latter may, during the pendency of the petition, be enjoined from further
proceeding with the case (sec 7, Rule 65).
Q: Are the remedies of appeal and certiorari exclusive?
A:
GR: Where the proper remedy is appeal, the action for certiorari will not be
entertained. Certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment. Errors of judgment
are correctible by appeal; errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari.

XPN: A petition for certiorari may be allowed despite the availability of the remedy
of appeal when:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy;

Orders were issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction;
For certain special considerations as for public policy or public welfare;
Order is a patent nullity;
Decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigation; or
In criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution
as, in case of
acquittal, there could be no remedy.
PROHIBITION

Q: What is prohibition?
A: A remedy to prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards or persons from
usurping or exercising a jurisdiction or power which they have not been vested by
law.
Note: It is commenced by a verified petition 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 65).
INJUNCTION
PROHIBITION
Directed only to the party litigants,
Directed to court itself, commanding it to
without in any manner interfering with
cease from the exercise of a jurisdiction to
the court.
which it has no legal claim.
Q: Distinguish injunction and prohibition.

Q: What is the function of writ of prohibition?

A: It is a preventive remedy. Its function is to restrain the doing of some act about
to be done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished. If
the thing be already done, the writ of prohibition cannot undo it (Agustin v. De la
Fuente, G.R. No. L-2345, Aug. 31, 1949).
MANDAMUS
Q: What is mandamus?
A: A writ issued in the name of the State, to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board
or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station.
Note: It is commenced by the filing of a verified petition accompanied by 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 (Sec. 3, Rule 65).

REQUISITES
CERTIORARI
That the petition is
directed against a
tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or
quasi judicial functions;
The tribunal, board or
officer has acted without,
or in excess of jurisdiction
or with abuse of
discretion amounting to
lack or excess or
jurisdiction
There is no appeal or any
plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
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
sworn
certification of non-forum
shopping under Rule 46.

PROHIBITION
The petition is directed
against a
tribunal, corporation, board
or person exercising judicial,
quasi judicial, or ministerial
functions;
The tribunal, corporation,
board or person must have
acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
There is no appeal or any
plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
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 sworn
certification of non-forum
shopping under Rule 46.

MANDAMUS
The plaintiff has a clear legal
right to the act demanded;

It must be the duty of the

defendant to perform the act,
which is ministerial and not
discretionary, because the
same is mandated by law;

The defendant unlawfully

neglects the performance of
the duty enjoined by law;
There is no appeal
or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.

WHEN PETITION OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

IS PROPER
Q: What are the grounds for the filing of a petition for certiorari?
A: That a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
acted:
1. Without or in excess of jurisdiction
2. In grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction

Note: It is commenced by the filing of a verified petition accompanied by 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. (Sec. 1, Rule 65).
Q: When is certiorari under Rule 65 unavailable?
A:
1. Summary procedure
2. Writ of Amparo
3. Writ of Habeas Data
4. Small claims cases
Q: When is prohibition issued?
A:
GR: Prohibition does not ordinarily lie to restrain an act which is already fait
accompli.
XPN: It will lie to prevent the creation of a new province by those in the corridors of
power who could avoid judicial intervention and review by merely speedily and
stealthily completing the commission of such illegality. (Tan v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
73155, July 11, 1986).
Note: Prohibition and not mandamus, is the remedy where a motion to dismiss is
wrongfully denied (Enriquez v. Macadaeg, G.R. No. L-2422, Sept. 30, 1949)
Q: What are the grounds for mandamus?
A:
1. When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station; or
2. When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is
entitled (Sec. 3).
Q: Will mandamus issue despite the availability of administrative
remedies?
A:
GR: Mandamus will not issue when administrative remedies are still available.
XPN:
1. If the party is in estoppel (Vda. de Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission, G.R. No.
L- 12944, Mar. 30, 1959); or

2. Only questions of law are raised. (Madrigal v. Lecaroz, G.R. No. L-46218, Oct. 23,
1990)
Q: May mandamus be used to compel a discretionary duty?
A: Mandamus is only applicable to a ministerial duty. However, mandamus can be
used to the
extent of requiring the performance of a discretionary duty to act but not to require
performance of such duty in a particular manner.
Q: May the CA award damages in mandamus proceedings?
A: Yes. The CA in resolving a petition for mandamus is authorized to award civil
damages in the same (Vital-Gozon v. CA, G.R. No. 101428, Aug. 3, 1992).

INJUNCTIVE RELIEFELIEF
Q: When is injunctive relief proper?
A: 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
against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case (Sec. 7, Rule 65).
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 (TRO) or a Writ of 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 (AM 07-7-12-SC, Dec. 12, 2007).

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RULE 45 AND RULE 65

Rule 65
Rule 45
Findings of fact of Court of Appeals are not
conclusive or binding upon SC
Involves question of jurisdiction
Mode of appeal
Directed against an interlocutory order of a
court or where there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy or adequate remedy

GR: Findings of fact of CA are

conclusive
Involves question of law
Mode of review
Involves the review of the judgment
final orders or resolutions of the CA,
Sandiganbayan, CTA, RTC or other
courts

Filed not later than 60 days from notice of

judgment, order or resolution appealed from
Unless a writ of preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order is issued, it
does not stay the challenged proceeding
The judge, court, quasijudicial agency,
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person shall be public respondents who are
impleaded in the
action
Motion for reconsideration or for new trial is
required.
If a motion for reconsideration or new trial is
filed, another 60 days shall be given to the
petitioner (A.M. No. 0203-SC)
Court exercises original jurisdiction

Filed with the RTC, CA, Sandiganbayan or

COMELEC

Filed within 15 days from notice of

judgment, final order or resolution
appealed from
Stays the judgment or order appealed
from
The appellant and the appellee are the
original parties to the action, and the
lower court or quasijudicial agency is
not impleaded
Motion
required.

for reconsideration is not

The court is in the exercise of its

appellate jurisdiction and power of
review.
Filed with the SC

EXCEPTIONS TO FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE FILING

PETITION
Q: Is it an absolute rule that before recourse to certiorari is taken
a motion for reconsideration must be filed?
A:
GR: Petition for certiorari will not be entertained unless the public
respondent has been given first the opportunity through a motion for
reconsideration to correct the error being imputed to him.
XPNs: A prior motion for reconsideration is not necessary to entertain a
petition for certiorari where:
1. Order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
2. Questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised
and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and
passed upon in the lower court;
3. Urgent necessity for the resolution of the question, and any further
delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner,
or the subject matter of the action is perishable;
4. Under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be
useless;
5. Petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief;

6. 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. Proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
8. Proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity
to object; and
9. Issue raised is one purely of law or where public.
RELIEFS PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO
Q: What are the reliefs a petitioner is entitled to with this action?
A:
The primary relief will 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 (sec 1,
Rule 65) The court may also award damages in its judgment and the
execution of the award for damages or costs shall follow the procedure in
sec 1 of rule 39 (sec 9, rule 65).
ACTIONS/OMISSIONS OF MTC/RTC IN ELECTION CASES
Q: What is the rule on acts or omissions of the MTC or RTC
regarding election cases?
A: 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. (Sec.4, Rule
65, As amended by AM No. 07-7-12-SC, Dec.
12, 2007)
WHERE TO FILE PETITION
Q: When and where to file petition?
A:
Supreme Court- Subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and only
when compelling reasons exist for not filing the same with the lower
courts.
Court of Appeals only- If the petition involves an act or an omission of a
quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or rules.
Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan- Whether or not in aid of appellate
jurisdiction.
Regional Trial Court- If the petition relates to an act or an omission of an
MTC, corporation, board, officer or person.
COMELEC- In election cases involving an act or an omission of an MTC or
RTC As amended by AM No. 07-7-12-SC, Dec. 12, 2007.

EFFECTS OF FILING OF AN UNMERITORIOUS PETITION

Q: What is the effect of a petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus which is patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly
for delay, or raises questions which are too unsubstantial to
require consideration?
A: The court may dismiss the petition. 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.
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 (Sec. 8, as amended by A.M. No.
07-7-12-SC).