Certiorari Prohibition
Definition Special Civil Action against
a tribunal board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial function which is
alleged in a verified petition
filed by an aggrieved party
to have acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
Pre-condition There is no appeal, or any
plain speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
Objective To correct the respondent’s
acts by annulling
proceedings.
Purpose To annul or nullify a
judgment or modify the
proceedings.
Mandamus will lie:
a. in case any tribunal unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoys as a duty;
b. in case any corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station;
c. in case any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which such other is legally entitled;
d. there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Issue
When to file
Parties
Pre-condition
Jurisdiction Exercised
Where to file
Stay of execution
Mandamus
Special civil action against a Special civil action against a tribunal,
tribunal, corporation, board, or corporation, board, or officer alleged in a
person exercising judicial, verified petition filed by an aggrieved party
quasi-judicial or ministerial to have:
function which is alleged by an
aggrieved party to be acting or 1. Unlawfully neglected the performance of
about to act without an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
jurisdiction, in excess of its duty resulting from an office, trust or station,
jurisdiction or with grave abuse or
of discretion amounting to lack 2. Unlawfully excluded another from the use
or excess of jurisdiction and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled.
There is no appeal, or any plain There is no appeal, or any plain speedy and
speedy and adequate remedy adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
in the ordinary course of law. law.
To prevent the commission of To compel performance of a ministerial duty
an act or stopping proceedings. but not to compel performance of a
discretionary duty (exercise of his own
judgment/given the authority to decide how
and when).
To have respondent desist To have respondent do the act required to
from further proceeding. be done to protect the rights of the petitioner
and pay damages sustained by reason of
the wrongful acts
Certiorari (Rule 65) Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule
45)
Whether the lower court acted without, in Based on questions of law
excess of or with grave abuse of
discretion
Addresses an interlocutory order prior to Involves a review of judgment/final order/
appeal of a judgment when there is no resolution on the merits
appeal or any other speedy or adequate
remedy
Not later than 60 days from notice of the Within 15 days from notice of judgment /
resolution sought to be assailed or denial order
of a motion for reconsideration
the aggrieved party is the petitioner the original parties in the case and the
against the against the lower court, lower court is not impleaded
agency and the prevailing party
requires a motion for reconsideration prior does not require the filing of a motion for
to filing reconsideration prior to filing
Original jurisdiction Appellate jurisdiction
SC, CA, RTC SC
Does not stay the order or resolution Stay the judgment /final order or award
unless a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction is issued
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION A PRE-REQUISITE
GR: A motion for reconsideration is an essential precondition for the filing of a petition for certiorari.
EXPN:
a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding 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;
c) 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 or the subject matter of the action is perishable;
d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
f) 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;
g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; and
h) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved
WHEN TO FILE

 Not later than 60 days from notice of the assailed judgment, order or resolution.
 If a timely MR is filed- the 60 days period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the motion.
 An extension may be granted for compelling reasons but in no case to exceed 15 days.
WHERE TO FILE

RTC exercising appropriate territorial jurisdiction - 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
 CA- whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, when it involves acts / omissions of quasi-judicial body,
unless otherwise provided.
 Sandiganbayan- whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
 SC
WHO MUST BE JOINED AS RESPONDENTS
1) Judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person who rendered the judgement
(Public Respondent)
2) Person/s interested in sustaining the proceeding in the court (Private Respondent/s)
Note:
Unless otherwise directed by the court, the public respondents shall not appear or file an answer or comment. If elevated
to a higher court the public respondents shall be nominal parties, and unless directed shall not appear or participate in the
proceedings therein.
The private respondents shall appear and defend the assailed proceedings and shall bear the costs.

WHAT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION?

If petition is sufficient in form or substance, a comment will be required, not a motion to dismiss.
Orders expediting proceedings or temporary restraining order or injunctions for the preservation of the rights of
the parties may be issued but the filing of the petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a
Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction is granted enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding.
WHAT ARE THE COURT’S ACTION AFTER FILING OF COMMENT TO THE PETITION?
1) Court may (1) hear or require (2)filing of memoranda. If it finds the allegations to be true, it shall render judgment
for the relief prayed for or to which petitioner is entitled.
2) It may also dismiss if (1) patently without merit, (2) prosecuted manifestly for delay or (3) issues are too
unsubstantial to require consideration.
HOW WILL THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER BE ENFORCED?
A certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer, or person concerned. Failure to comply shall be punished as contempt. An execution may issue for any damages
or costs awarded in accordance with Sec. 1 of Rule 39.

(ito ung supplemental. Di q pa naaayos ung sequence. Kht idiscuss nlng ito at wag na isama sa powerpoint)

 The proper remedy to question an improvident interlocutory order is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not Rule 45. A
petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper mode of redress to question only final judgments. One cannot appeal from an
interlocutory order. Permitting appeals on such an order may result in multiplicity of appeals in a single action thus, prolonging
the action.

 Material data (date) rule:

Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides that there are three material dates that must be stated in a petition for
certiorari brought under Rule 65:

(1) the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received;
(2) the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and
(3) the date when notice of the denial thereof was received. This requirement is for the purpose of determining the timeliness
of the petition
* Rule 65 also requires the pleader to submit a certification against forum shopping

 Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative
or successive because they do not have identical elements and requisites.
Certiorari does not interrupt the principal case
1. The petition for certiorari does not interrupt the course of the principal case (Sec. 7, Rule 65, Rules of Court). Hence, if said petition
is filed against a court, the proceedings in that court have to proceed.
2. The respondent court has the duty to proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of the petition with a higher
court or tribunal. As a rule, failure of the respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge
(Sec. 7, Rule 65, Rules of Court).
Remedy in order to interrupt the course of the principal case
The petitioner should secure a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the public respondent from
proceeding with the case and for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. When so secured, the public
respondent shall not proceed with the principal case during the period that the temporary restraining order or the writ of preliminary
injunction is in effect (Sec. 7, Rule 65, Rules of Court)
As a rule, where appeal is available, certiorari cannot be availed of unless it can be shown that appeal is not speedy, or adequate.
Hence, the basic question to be considered is: Does the petitioner have the remedy of appeal or any other remedy? If the answer is in
the affirmative, certiorari is not available, as a rule. However, even if appeal is available, if it is not adequate, speedy or equally
beneficial as certiorari, a petition for certiorari may be
availed of. (Landbank of the Phils, v. CA, 409 SCRA 455, 480-481)
It is a remedy narrow in scope. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop. Its function is to raise only questions of jurisdiction
and no other. It cannot be used for any other purpose. Do not file certiorari if your purpose is to raise a factual issue or to ask for a re-
evaluation of the facts and the evidence (PILTEL v. NTC, 410 SCRA 82, 88).