JARDELEZA VS SERENO

G.R. No. 213181

August 19, 2014
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
Following Justice Abads compulsory retirement, the JBC
announced the application or recommendations for the
position left by the Associate Justice. Jardeleza, the
incumbent Sol-Gen at the time, was included in the list of
candidates. However, he was informed through telephone
call from some Justices that the Chief Justice herself CJ
Sereno, will be invoking Sec 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 or the
so-called unanimity rule against him. Generally, the rule is
that an applicant is included in the shortlist when s/he
obtains affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the
members of the JBC. When Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009,
however, is invoked because an applicants integrity is
challenged, a unanimous vote is required. Jardeleza was
then directed to make himself available on June 30, 2014
before the JBC during which he would be informed of the
objections to his integrity.
Jardeleza wrote a letter-petition asking the SC to exercise its
supervisory power and direct the JBC to, among others, give
Jardeleza a written notice and sworn written statements of
his oppositors or any documents in the JBC hearings, and to
disallow CJ Sereno from participating in the voting process
for nominees on June 30, 2014.

During the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC, Justice Carpio
appeared and disclosed a confidential information which, to
CJ Sereno, characterized Jardelezas integrity as dubious.
Jardeleza demanded that CJ Sereno execute a sworn
statement specifying her objections and that he be afforded
the right to cross-examine her in a public hearing. He also

requested deferment of the JBC proceedings, as the SC en

banc has yet to decide in his letter-petition.
However, the JBC continued its deliberations and proceeded
to vote for the nominees to be included in the shortlist.
Thereafter, the JBC released the shortlist of 4 nominees. It
was revealed later that there were actually 5 nominees who
made it to the JBC shortlist, but 1 nominee could not be
included because of the invocation of the unanimity rule..
Jardeleza filed for certiorari and mandamus via Rule 65 with
prayer for TRO to compel the JBC to include him in the list of
nominees on the grounds that the JBC and CJ Sereno acted
with grave abuse of discretion in excluding him, despite
having garnered a sufficient number of votes to qualify for
the position.

ISSUE: Whether or not a writ of mandamus is available

against the JBC

HELD: No. The JBCs duty to nominate is discretionary and

it may not be compelled to do something.
Mandamus lies 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 control or
review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the
law imposes upon said public officer the right and duty to
exercise his judgment in reference to any matter in which he
is required to act. It is his judgment that is to be exercised
and not that of the court.