RULE 65 >>> CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, and MANDAMUS

Certiorari as a MODE OF APPEAL

(Rule 45)
A mode of appeal, a continuation of
the appellate process over the original
case
Seeks to review final judgments or
final orders

Filed within 15 days from notice or

final order appealed from, or from
denial of the petitioners motion for
reconsideration or new trial

Extension of 30 days may be granted

for justifiable reasons
Does not require 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 the respondent
without impleading the lower court or
its judge
Filed only with the Supreme Court

Certiorari as a SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION

(Rule 65)
A special civil action that is an original
civil action, not a part of the appellate
process but an independent action
May be directed against an
interlocutory order or where no
appeal or plain or speedy remedy
available
Filed not later than 60 days from
notice of judgment, order or
resolution sought to be assailed and in
case a motion for reconsideration or
new trial is timely filed, whether such
motion is required or not, the 60 day
period is counted from notice of denial
of said motion
Extension is no longer allowed
Motion for reconsideration is a
condition precedent, subject to
exceptions
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

May be filed with the Supreme Court,

Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court
or Sandiganbayan

CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS distinguished:

Certiorari

Prohibition

Mandamus

Directed against a person

exercising to judicial or
quasi-judicial functions

Directed against a person

exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions, or
ministerial functions

Directed against a
person exercising
ministerial duties

Object is to correct an act

performed by respondent

Object is to prevent the

commission or carrying out
of an act

Object is to compel the

performance of the act
desired

Purpose is to annul or
modify the proceedings

Purpose is to stop the

proceedings

Purpose is to compel
performance of the act
required and to collect
damages

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

Person must have

neglected a ministerial
duty or excluded
another from a right or
office

Where to file the petition?

SC
RTC
CA only

CA and
When may petition be filed? The petition shall be filed not later than sixty
Sandiganbayan
COMELEC
(60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed.
In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion
is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the said motion.

Subject to the doctrine of hierarchy or courts and only when compelling reasons exist
for not filing the same with the lower courts
If the petition related to an act or an omission of an MTC, cormporation, board, officer
or person
If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency unless otherwise
provided by the laws or rules
If it is in aid of appellate jurisdiction
In election cases involving an act or an omission of an MTC or RTC

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.
Grounds for the court to motu propio dismiss the special civil action for CPM: patently without merit; prosecuted manifestly for delay, or the questions raised therein
are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
Reporter: CARMILA CLAUDETTE B. BAGAY

PROHIBITION
Always the main action
Directed against a court, tribunal
exercising judicial functions
Ground: the court must have acted
with or in excess of jurisdiction

INJUNCTION
May be the main action or a
provisional remedy
Directed against a party
Does not involve question of
jurisdiction

MANDAMUS
Clarifies legal duties, not legal
titles
Respondent, without claiming
any right to the office, excludes
the petitioner
PROHIBITION
To prevent an act
Extends to discretionary functions

QUO WARRANTO
Clarifies who has legal title
to the office or franchise
Respondent usurps the
office

MANDAMUS
To compel an act
Extends only to ministerial
functions

A requisite common to the writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus:

These writs may only be availed of only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law from the acts of
the respondent.
A special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus does not stay execution, unless a TRO or PI is issued.

CERTIORARI
correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
extraordinary remedy which may be availed of only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law from the acts of the respondent; except:
(1) When public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; (2) When the broader interests of justice so require; (3) When the wits
issued are null; (4)When the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority; and (5) When the petition is genuinely
meritorious.
Where the remedy is appeal, the action for certiorari will not be entertained.
Original action for certiorari is not a substitute for appeal especially when the remedy of appeal was lost through the fault of the petitioner.
(Florendo vs. CFI of Ilocos Sur, 104 Phil 661)
RULE: Before certiorari may be availed of, petitioner must have filed a motion for the reconsideration by the lower court of the act or
order complained of.
However, said requirement is not absolute and may be dispensed with when: (1) the order is patent nullity; (2) the questions raised in the
certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court; (3) there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudice the interest of the Government, etc.
Reporter: CARMILA CLAUDETTE B. BAGAY

PROHIBITION

A preventive remedy
To prevent the respondent from performing the act sought to be prevented during the pendency of the proceedings for the writ, the
petitioner should obtain a RESTRAINING ORDER and /or a WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but not to legislative functions.
Prohibition does not ordinarily lie to restrain an act which is already fait accompli (fact or deed accomplished)
Grant/denial of a writ of prohibition is ordinarily within the sound discretion of the court to be exercised with caution and forbearance.
Prohibition is improper- when there is no allegation or charge of lack of jurisdiction or with having committed grave or abuse of discretion
-where there is no exhaustion of administrative remedies

MANDAMUS

To compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty.

Mandamus is improper- against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment.
- To compel the performance of a contractual duty, especially if the contract is disputed and mandamus suit
cannot be converted into an ordinary action for breach of contract.
Mandamus can be availed of only by the party who has direct legal interest in the right sought to be enforced. However, if the question is
one of public right and the objrct of mandamus is to procure the performance of a public duty, it is sufficient to show that petitioner is a
citizen even if he has no special interest in the result. (Benitez vs. Paredes 52 Phil 113)
In a special civil action for mandamus in the Court of Appeals, said court has the power to award damages prayed for as an incident or the
result of the respondents wrongful act in failing and refusing to do the act required to be done.

Reporter: CARMILA CLAUDETTE B. BAGAY