Transcript

1. Notes on Civil Procedure by Lawrence Villamar Source: Revised Rules of

Procedure Annotated (Estopia, 2013) RULE 65 CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND
MANDAMUS A. CERTIORARI WHEN to file: NOT later than 60 days from notice of
judgment, order or resolution. If motion for reconsideration/new trial is filed,
recokoning of reglamentary period is from notice of denial of the motion. NO
extension to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no
case exceeding fifteen (15) day. (Yoche v Yoche, 2007) The period as specifically
set to avoid any unreasonable delay violative of right of parties to speedy
disposition. Hence, it is inextendible, except for exceptional circumstaces ot he
ground of ustice and equity. WHERE to file: If petition relates to act of
MTC/corporation/board/an officer/person, filed with appropriate RTC. May also be
filed with CA or Sandiganbayan; if involving quasi-judicial agency, with CA unless
otherwise provided by law. In election cases (MTC/RTC), exclusively with COMELEC in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction Pertinent pleadings and documets must be
attached to the petition (Sec. 1 (2), Rule 65) FUNCTION: To keep inferior courts
within the bounds of its urisdiction or to prevent it from committing such grave abue
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction As a rule, grant of petition
for certiorari does NOT interrupt the course of the principal case, unless coupled
with a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction. Public respondent to proceed within ten
(10) days from filing of petition for certiorari, absent TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction Court may dismiss petition if it finds the same to be patentl without
merit or prosecuted manifestly for delay or questions raised are too unsubstantial. It
my impose motu propio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinar
sanctions/measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory/umeritorious petitions for
certiorari. The remedy against interlocutory resolutions of the Court of Appeals is
certiorari under Rule 65 (as provided in Sec 1 (b) Rule 41) The grant of a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 requires grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretoion: were an an act I performed wit a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of juridiction. Abuse
must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty/ power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reaon of pasion or hostility.
Question of law should be filed with Supreme Court, NOT Court of Appeals. The
Supreme Court has original jurisdiction xxx over cases in wich only question of law
is involved (Hanjin vs CA, 2006) Petition for certiorari against quasi-judicial agency
cognizable only by the Court of Appeals (via petition for review on certiorari, under
Rule 43). Certiorari is proper only if the party has no plai, speedy, adequate remed
in the course of law. Remedies of appeal uder Rule 45 and an original action for
certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive (Nippon vs CA, 2004). Certiorari is
not subtitute to a lost appeal, as proscribed under Rule 45. If there are other
existing remedy, it must NOT be plain, speedy and

2. Notes on Civil Procedure by Lawrence Villamar Source: Revised Rules of

Procedure Annotated (Estopia, 2013) adequate. There are occasions when the
Supreme Court treated a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as one filed under Rule
45 (provided, that it was filed within prescribed time and attended by special
circumstances). Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such other
courts as may be established by law (Sec 1, Art VIII of the 1987 Constitution),
includes determiation of grave abuse of discretion and issuance of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus etc. Certiorari will only issue to correct errors of
jurisdiction. Errors of judgment not enough; it must be capricious, arbitrarym abd
whimsical exercise of power. Abuse of discretion must be patet/exercised
arbitrarily/despotically. Motion for reconsideration a condition precedent before
certiorari may be granted, except: when the court pronounced its decision final
and excecutory. Motion for conideration is no longer necessary/other special
circumstances warrant immediate and direct action (i.e. bail has been
granted/accused free to roam) when the court a quo had no jurisdiction when
question raised in certiorari has been duly raised and passed upon by lower
court/sa,e as those raised and passed upon in lower court Whe there is an urgent
necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would preudice
interest of government/petitioner/subject matter is perishable MR is useless,
under the circumastances Petitioner deprived of due process/extreme urgency of
relief is improbable Proceedings ex parte Petitioner has no opportunity to object
Purely question of law A question of law does not call for examination of the
probative vale of evidence presented, the truth of falsehood of facts being
admitted/doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence o the
matter. When there is a dispute as to fact, the questio of whether or notthe
conclusio draw there from is correct, is a question of law. Public interest is
involved (e.g. employer-employee relationship impressed with public interest)
Error is patent nullity Judicial intervention is urgent/great and irreparable damage
No grave abuse of discretio may be attributed to a court simply becaue of its
alleged wrongful appreciation of fact a evidence. Certiorari will NOT issue for errors
of procedure or mistake in the findings or conclusion of the lower court. Review of
evidence can not be secured in petitio for CPM. Petition for Review under Rule 45
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 Proper remedy of a part aggrieved by decision
of the CA as continuation of appellate process over original case Original case No
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
3. Notes on Civil Procedure by Lawrence Villamar Source: Revised Rules of
Procedure Annotated (Estopia, 2013) Promptly relieves petitioner from inurious
effects of judgments/acts of lower court/agency1 Interlocutory orders, if found to
be with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may
be remedied with special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. The doctrine of
hierarchy of courts is not n iro0n-clad dictum and it may be relaxed whe exceptional
and compelling circumstance so warrant the exercise of the [Supreme Court's]
primary jurisdiction. Technical rules on substitution of parties should not be nrrowly

construed as to prevent the court from deciding the case on its merit. B.
PROHIBITION Requisites: tribunal/corporation/board/an officer/person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specfically enjoins as duty/
unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a right or office No
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy verified petition in the proper courts
alleging facts with certainty/praying judgments be rendered commanding the
resposndent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified
therein/incidental relief Grounds for petition without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction no appeal/ any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law Certified true copy of the judgment must accompany the
petition as well as copies of pertinent pleadings and documents, and sworn
certificate of non-forum shopping (Sec 3 Rule 46) C. MANDAMUS A mandamus will
not prosper to compel a discretionary act EXCEPTION: Instances of(1) gross abuse
of discretion , manifest injustice or palpable excess of authority, equivalent to denia
of settled right and (2) no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy Commission with
ministerial duty subject to mandamus A purely ministerial act is one which an
officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in
obedience ot the mandate of legal authority WITHOUT regard to or the exercise of
his own judgment upon propriety or impropriety of the act done. Mandamus is the
preoper remedy to compel a corporation to grant monthly salary and holiday pay
Mandamus is NOT the proper to compel a school to enroll a student for academic
deficiencies because this involves the exercise by the school of discretion under
academic freedom 1 The grant of petition for certiorari does not stop the assailed
principal proceedings, unless ith TRO or writ of prelimary injunction.
4. Notes on Civil Procedure by Lawrence Villamar Source: Revised Rules of
Procedure Annotated (Estopia, 2013) Mandamus will not lie against the President
or Congress due to principle that the judiciary is a co-equal branch Failure to
exhaust administrative remedies is generally fatal to an action for mandamus If
petition is sufficient in form and substance, court will order respondent to comment
within ten (10) days from receipt of copy. Respondent may not file a motion to
dismiss but the court may require filing of reply and other responsive pleading
Court may issue injunctive relief (TRO or writ of preliminary injunction) with the
grant of the petition.