RULE 65 – CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
CASE NUMBER/TITLE/G.R NO/PONENTE
(1) STAR SPECIAL WATCHMAN AND
DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC., CELSO A.
FERNANDEZ and MANUEL V. FERNANDEZ vs
PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, MAYOR EDWARD
HAGEDORN and CITY COUNCIL OF PUERTO
PRINCESA CITY, G.R. No. 181792, April 21,
2014
PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.
CASE RULING
WHEN WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS AVAILABLE / WHEN IT WILL NOT ISSUE
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. 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. 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. 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.
The COURT cannot blame petitioners for resorting to the remedy of mandamus because they have done everything in the
books to satisfy their just and demandable claim. They went to the courts, the COA, the Ombudsman, and the DILG. They
RESORTED TO THE REMEDY OF MANDAMUS because in at least three (3) cases, the Court sanctioned the remedy in cases of
final judgments rendered against a local government unit (LGU). The Court ruled that a CLAIMANT may RESORT TO THE REMEDY
OF MANDAMUS to compel an LGU to enact the necessary ordinance and approve the corresponding disbursement in order to
satisfy the judgment award. Clearly, MANDAMUS IS A REMEDY AVAILABLE to a property owner when a money judgment is
rendered in its favor and against a municipality or city, as in this case.
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. 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. Recognized further in this jurisdiction
is the PRINCIPLE THAT MANDAMUS CANNOT BE USED to enforce contractual obligations. 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. The WRIT IS NOT APPROPRIATE to enforce a private right against an individual. 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. To PRESERVE ITS
PREROGATIVE CHARACTER, mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in matters relating to the public.
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. 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. Although classified as a legal remedy, mandamus is equitable in its nature and its issuance is generally controlled by
equitable principles. Indeed, the GRANT OF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS lies in the sound discretion of the court. [Emphasis

(2) ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, Petitioner, -
versus - JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC)
and PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL
ARROYO
PONENTE: BERSAMIN, J.:
(3) FIDELA R. ANGELES - versus - THE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE
ADMINISTRATOR, LAND REGISTRATION
AUTHORITY, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
QUEZON CITY, and SENATOR TEOFISTO T.
GUINGONA, JR., Respondents,
Respondents, March 9, 2010
PONENTE: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
supplied]
REQUISITES OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS / DISTINCTION BETWEEN A MINISTERIAL AND DISCRETIONARY ACT
For mandamus to lie, the FOLLOWING REQUISITES MUST BE COMPLIED with: (a) the PLAINTIFF has a clear legal right to the act
demanded; (b) it must be the DUTY OF THE DEFENDANT to perform the act, because it is mandated by law; (c) the DEFENDANT
unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (d) the ACT TO BE PERFORMED is ministerial, NOT
discretionary; and (e) there is NO appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (CITED
IN THE BOOK OF RIANO, PAGE 311-312)
The DISTINCTION BETWEEN A MINISTERIAL ACT AND A DISCRETIONARY ONE HAS BEEN DELINEATED IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER: The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A PURELY MINISTERIAL ACT OR DUTY is
one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a
legal authority, WITHOUT regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the
law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is
DISCRETIONARY and not ministerial. The DUTY IS MINISTERIAL only when the discharge of the same requires neither the
exercise of official discretion or judgment. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF RIANO, PAGE 312 TO 313)
The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the start of the Presidents mandatory 90-day period to appoint is
MINISTERIAL, but its selection of the candidates whose names will be in the list to be submitted to the President lies within the
discretion of the JBC. The OBJECT OF THE PETITIONS FOR MANDAMUS herein should only refer to the duty to submit to the
President the list of nominees for every vacancy in the Judiciary, because in order to constitute unlawful neglect of duty, there
must be an unjustified delay in performing that duty. For MANDAMUS TO LIE AGAINST THE JBC, therefore, there should be an
unexplained delay on its part in recommending nominees to the Judiciary, that is, in submitting the list to the President.
PURPOSE OF MANDAMUS / CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT
It is settled that MANDAMUS IS EMPLOYED to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but NOT to compel
the performance of a discretionary duty. MANDAMUS WILL NOT ISSUE to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or to
which a substantial doubt exists. It is nonetheless likewise AVAILABLE to compel action, when refused, in matters involving
judgment and discretion, but NOT to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal
of an action already taken in the exercise of either. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF RIANO, PAGE 317)
Likewise, the WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAN BE AWARDED only when the petitioners' legal right to the performance of the
particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. Under RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT, a CLEAR LEGAL
RIGHT is a right which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law. If the right is clear and the case is
meritorious, objections raising merely technical questions will be disregarded. But where the RIGHT SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED
IS IN SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT OR DISPUTE, as in this case, mandamus cannot issue. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF RINAO, PAGE 312)

(4) SPECIAL PEOPLE, INC. FOUNDATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ROBERTO
P. CERICOS vs. NESTOR M. CANDA,
BIENVENIDO LIPA YON, JULIAN D.
AMADOR, BOHOL PROVINCIAL CHIEF,
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AND NATIONAL
DIRECTOR, RESPECTIVELY,
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
ALL SUED IN BOTH THEIR OFFICIAL AND
PRIVATE CAPACITIES, G.R. No. 160932,
January 14, 2013
PONENTE: BERSAMIN, J.:
(5) FROILAN DEJURAS - versus - HON. RENE
C. VILLA, in his official capacity as Secretary
of Agrarian Reform; the BUREAU OF
AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE, the CENTER
FOR LAND USE AND POLICY PLANNING
INSTITUTE, the DEPARTMENT
AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD, all of the Department of Agrarian
Reform; CONCHITA DELFINO; ANTHONY
DELFINO; ARTEMIO ALON; and SM PRIME
HOLDINGS, INC., G.R. No. 173428,
November 22, 2010
The ISSUANCE BY THE LRA OFFICIALS OF A DECREE OF REGISTRATION is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find
that such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land. In the same vein, we find that in this case, which involves
the issuance of transfer certificates of title, the REGISTER OF DEEDS CANNOT BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS to comply with
the RTC Order since there were existing transfer certificates of title covering the subject parcels of land and there was reason to
question the rights of those requesting for the issuance of the TCTs. NEITHER COULD RESPONDENT LRA ADMINISTRATOR be
mandated by the Court to require the Register of Deeds to comply with said Order, for we find merit in the explanations of
respondent LRA Administrator in his letter-reply that cites the 1st Indorsement issued by respondent Guingona, LRA Circular No.
97-11, and Senate Committee Report No. 1031, as reasons for his refusal to grant petitioners request.
PURELY MINISTERIAL ACT OR DUTY
A key principle to be observed in dealing with PETITIONS FOR MANDAMUS is that such extraordinary remedy lies to compel the
performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature, NOT those that are discretionary. A PURELY MINISTERIAL ACT OR
DUTY is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of
a legal authority, WITHOUT regard to or the exercise of its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The
DUTY IS MINISTERIAL only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment.
EXCEPTION (WHEN MANDAMUS MAY LIE TO COMPEL DISCRETIONARY ACTS)
Established is the procedural law precept that a WRIT OF MANDAMUS GENERALLY LIES to compel the performance of a
ministerial duty, but NOT the performance of an official act or duty which necessarily involves the exercise of judgment. Thus,
when the ACT SOUGHT TO BE PERFORMED INVOLVES THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, the respondent may only be directed by
OF mandamus to act but not to act in one way or the other. It is, nonetheless, ALSO AVAILABLE to compel action, when refused, in
matters involving judgment and discretion, but NOT to direct the exercise of judgment in a particular manner. However, this
RULE ADMITS OF EXCEPTIONS. MANDAMUS IS THE PROPER REMEDY in cases where there is gross abuse of discretion,
manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF RIANO, PAGE 318)
Clearly, the GRANT OF AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF in this case is NOT PROPERLY COMPELLABLE BY MANDAMUS inasmuch as it
requires discretion and judgment on the part of both the DAR and the DARAB to find whether petitioner has a clear legal right
 that needs to be protected and that the acts of SMPHI are violative of such right. On this score alone, the COURT OF APPEALS
PONENTE: PERALTA, J.: cannot be faulted for its refusal to issue the writ of mandamus prayed for.

(6) CLARK INVESTORS AND LOCATORS WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS NOT ISSUED IN DOUBTFUL CASES
ASSOCIATION INC., vs. SECRETARY OF
FINANCE AND COMMISSIONER OF Certainly, MANDAMUS is never issued in doubtful cases. It CANNOT BE AVAILED against an official or government agency whose duty
INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No. 200670, July requires the exercise of discretion or judgment. For a WRIT TO ISSUE, petitioners should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded,
6, 2015 and there should be an imperative duty on the part of respondents to perform the act sought to be mandated.

PONENTE: VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
The POWERS TO CONFER DEGREES AT THE PMA, GRANT AWARDS, AND COMMISSION OFFICERS IN THE MILITARY SERVICE are
discretionary acts on the part of the President as the AFP Commander-in-Chief. There are standards that must be met. There are
policies to be pursued. DISCRETION appears to be of the essence. In terms of Hohfeld's terminology, what a student in the position of
petitioner possesses is a PRIVILEGE RATHER THAN A RIGHT. He in this case, CADET 1CL CUDIA cannot therefore satisfy the prime and
indispensable requisite of a mandamus proceeding.