RULE 65 |1
RULE 65 1.3 Requirements of petition for certiorari under Rule 65
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
1. Certiorari under Rule 65
 Directed against whom – any tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
(Sec 1, Rule 65)
 Under what circumstance to be initiated –
1. When any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
has acted without or in excess its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and
2. there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. (Sec 1, Rule 65)
 Who may initiate – a person aggrieved thereby. (Sec
1, Rule 65)
 How initiated – by a verified petition in the proper
court. (Sec 1, Rule 65)
 What to allege in the petition - alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require. (Sec 1, Rule 65)
 What to accompany the petition - The petition shall
be accompanied by
1. a certified true copy of the judgment, order
or resolution subject thereof,
2. copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and
3. a sworn certification of non-forum shopping
as provided in the third paragraph of section
3, Rule 46. (Sec 1, Rule 65)
1.1 Writ of Certiorari
 Angeles v. Gutierrez – At the outset, we emphasize
that a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary
prerogative writ that is never demandable as a matter
of right.
 Roquero v. The counselor of UP-Manila – The abuse
must have been committed in a manner so patent
and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
1.2 The instances in which certiorari will issue cannot be
defined.
1. Whenever necessary to prevent a
substantial wrong
2. Or to do substantial justice
 Tan v. Spouses Antazo – petition of certiorari under
Rule 65 of ROC is a pleading limited to correction of
errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It may
issue only when the following requirements are
alleged in and established by the petition:
a) That the writ is directed against any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions;
b) That such tribunal, board or officer has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction; and
c) That there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
1.4 Motion for Reconsideration is a condition sine qua non;
exceptions
 Republic of the Philippines v. Bayao – held that a MR
is a condition sine qua non for filing of a petition for
certiorari subject to certain conditions:
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
proceedings 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 MR
would be useless;
e) Where the petitioner was deprived of due
process and there is extreme urgency for
relief;
f) Where, in 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;
h) Where the proceedings were ex parte or of
which the petitioner had no opportunity to
object; and
i) Where the issue raised is one purely of law
or where public interest is involved.

1.5 Certiorari inherently requires the filing of a Motion for
Reconsideration
 Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Philtranco
Workers Union-Association of Genuine Labor
Organization – It has long been settled that the
remedy of an aggrieved party in a decision or
resolution of the Secretary of Labor is to timely file a
motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any
further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably
file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
1.6 Remedy for dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a Petition
via Rule 65
 Republic v. Abdulwahab Bayao - A dismissal by the
Court of Appeals of a Petition via Rule 65 for failure to
file a Motion for Reconsideration may be assailed via
Rule 45.
1.7 Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari
a) The Supreme Court – has exclusive original
jurisdiction over petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus against judgment, final order and
resolutions of the following:
a. CA
b. Sandiganbayan
c. CTA
d. COMELEC
e. Ombudsman in criminal cases
b) The Court of Appeals – Sec 9, BP 129
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary
writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction;
a. Decisions, final order and
resolution of RTC
b. Decisions, final order and
resolution of NLRC
c. Decisions, final order of Sec of
Labor and employment in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
over decision, final order of the
following offices:
i. POEA
ii. Sec of Labor in case of
violation of apprenticeship
agreement
iii. NWPC on appeal over
Wage Order by RTWPB
RULE 65 |2
iv. Direct and indirect
contempt of NLRC
v. Sec of Labor in case of
denial of union
registration by RD or BLR
vi. BLR on appeal over
cancellation of union
registration
vii. Sec of Labor on appeal
over order of BLR in intra-
labor dispute
c) The Regional Trial Court – Sec 21, BP 129; exercise
original jurisdiction
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction which may be enforced in
any part of their respective regions;
d) Sandiganbayan - The Sandiganbayan shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other
ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature,
including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in
cases filed or which may be filed under Executive
Order Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided,
That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be
exclusive of the Supreme Court.
1.8 COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction for certiorari an election
cases
 Bulilis v. Nuez - SC recognizes the COMELECs
appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari
against all acts or omissions of courts in election
cases.
 Galang v. Geronimo – SC ruled that petition for
certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of the
regional trial court in an electoral protest case be
considered in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the
COMELEC.
1.9 Concurrent jurisdiction on certiorari and doctrine of
hierarchy of courts
 AL Ang Network v. Mondejar – To be sure, the Court,
the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts
have concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari.
 St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC – Consequently, all
petitions for certiorari of decisions of NLRC should
hence forth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in

strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of
courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.
1.10 Policy on Hierarchy of courts
 Dacudao v. SOJ – We emphasize that the concurrence
of jurisdiction among the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts to issue the
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction did not give
petitioners the unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum.
 The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy
on the hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the
policy is not to be ignored without serious
consequences. Bañez, Jr. v. Concepcion
 In People v. Cuaresma, the Court has also amplified
the need for strict adherence to the policy of
hierarchy of courts. This concurrence of jurisdiction is
not, however, to be taken as according to parties
seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained
freedom of choice of the court to which application
therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy
of courts.
1.11 Meaning of grave abuse of discretion
 Abedes v. CA - In a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner is burdened to
establish that the respondent tribunal acted without
jurisdiction, meaning, that it does not have the legal
power to determine the case; or that it acted without
or in excess of jurisdiction, meaning, that having been
clothed with power to determine the case, it
oversteps its authority as determined by law, or that
it committed grave abuse of its discretion or acted in
a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner
in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction.
 Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio - The term GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION has a specific meaning. An act of a court
or tribunal can only be considered as with grave
abuse of discretion when such act is done in a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
 The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or
to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
manner by reason of passion and hostility.
1.12 “Without jurisdiction” or excess of jurisdiction means
RULE 65 |3
 Alafriz v. Nable - "Without jurisdiction" means that
the court acted with absolute want of jurisdiction.
 LBP v. CA, GR 129368 - There is "excess of jurisdiction"
where the court has jurisdiction but has transcended
the same or acted without any statutory authority.
1.13 Meaning of Judicial Function
 A respondent is said to be exercising JUDICIAL
FUNCTION where he has the power to determine
what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties
are, and then undertakes to determine these
questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the
parties.
1.14 Meaning of quasi-judicial function
 QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION is a term which applies to
the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative
officers or bodies, who are required to investigate
facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis
for their official action and to exercise discretion of a
judicial nature.
1.15 Meaning of adequate remedy
 Conti v. CA – It is a remedy which (would) equally (be)
beneficial, speedy and sufficient not merely a remedy
which at some time in the future will bring about a
revival of the judgment . . . complained of in the
certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which will
promptly relieve the petitioner from the petitioner
from the injurious effects of that judgment and the
acts of the inferior court or tribunal.
 Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank - A remedy is considered
"plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly
relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the
judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.
1.16 Certiorari not the proper remedy if appeal is available
 LBP v. CA, GR 129368 - The general rule is that a cert
writ will not issue where the remedy of appeal is
available to the aggrieved party. The remedies of
appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court
are mutually exclusive and not alternative or
cumulative.
 Banco Filipino v. CA - The special civil action of
certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal
which petitioner has lost.
1.17 Appeal and Certiorari Distinguished
 As to Purpose. The special civil action for certiorari is
a remedy designed for the correction of errors of

jurisdiction and not errors of judgment (for appeal).
Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an
error of law or fact – a mistake of judgment – appeal
is remedy.
 As to Manner of Filing. In appeal by certiorari, the
appellate court is in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction and power of review, while in certiorari as
an original action, the higher court exercises original
jurisdiction under its power of control and
supervision over the proceedings of lower courts.
 As to Subject Matter. Certiorari, as a mode of appeal,
involves the review of the judgment, award or final
order on the merits. The original action for certiorari
may be directed against an interlocutory order of the
court prior to appeal from the judgment or where
there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy or
adequate remedy.
 As to the Period of Filing. Ordinary appeal shall be
taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
judgment or final order appealed from. Petition for
certiorari shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. 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 said motion.
 As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A
MR is generally required prior to the filing of a
petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal
an opportunity to correct the alleged errors. Such MR
is not required before appealing a judgment or final
order.
1.18 A petition for certiorari before the RTC is an original
action
 China Bank v. Cebu Printing and Packaging - a petition
for certiorari is an original and independent action
that was not part of the trial that had resulted in the
rendition of the judgment or order complained of.
1.19 Remedy in a petition for certiorari decided by RTC
 Yalong v. People – SC explained that a petition for
certiorari before the RTC is an original action and the
mode of appeal is by filing a notice of appeal under
Rule 41, Sec 2a.
Hence, based on the above-cited rule,
Yalong should have filed a notice of appeal with the
RTC instead of a petition for review with the CA. As a
consequence of Yalong’s failure to file a notice of
appeal with the RTC within the proper reglementary
period, the RTC Decision had attained finality which
RULE 65 |4
thereby bars Yalong from further contesting the
same.
1.20 Judgment or final order which can be the subject of a
petition for certiorari
 Those judgment or final order which are not
appealable can be the subject of SCA for under Rule
65.
 No appeal may be taken from:
a) An order denying a motion for new trial or
reconsideration
b) An order denying a petition for relief or any
similar motion seeking relief from judgment
c) An interlocutory order
d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal
e) An order denying a motion to set aside a
judgment by consent, confession or compromise
on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any
other ground vitiating consent
f) An order of execution
g) A judgment or final order for or against one or
more of several parties or in separate claims,
counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party
complaints, while the main case is pending,
unless the court allows an appeal therefrom
h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice
In all the above instances where the judgment or final
order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
1.21 Cases when certiorari is not proper
 Chua v. Santos – It is elementary that the special civil
action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute
for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available, as
it was in this case. Although there are exceptions to
these rules, among them are: (a) when public welfare
and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b)
when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c)
when the writs issued are null and void; (d) or when
the questioned order amounts to an oppressive
exercise of judicial authority, none is present in the
case at bar.
 ARBA v. Nicolas - Errors in the appreciation of
evidence may only be reviewed by appeal and not by
certiorari because they do not involve any
jurisdictional ground. Likewise, errors of law do not
involve jurisdiction and may only be corrected by
ordinary appeal.
 Galicto v. Aquino - Under the Rules of Court, petitions
for Certiorari and Prohibition are availed of to
question judicial, quasi-judicial and mandatory acts.

Since the issuance of an EO is not judicial, quasi-
judicial or a mandatory act, a petition for certiorari
and prohibition is an incorrect remedy; instead a
petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court, filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), is the proper recourse to assail the validity of
EO 7.
 Under Sec 22 of Rule on VAWC- Prohibited pleadings
and motions includes petition for certiorari,
mandamus or prohibition against interlocutory order
issued by the court.
1.22 Appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not
alternative
 Sandoval v. Cailipan - It is well-settled that the
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually
exclusive and not alternative or successive.
The simultaneous filing of a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal under
Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot
be allowed since one remedy would necessarily
cancel out the other. The existence and availability of
the right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari
because one of the requirements for availment of the
latter is precisely that there should be no appeal.
1.25 Application of the rule on Judicial Courtesy
1.23 Distinction between a final judgment or order and an
interlocutory order
 Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Spouses Lopez –
o A FINAL JUDGMENT OR ORDER is one that
finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing
more to be done by the Court in respect
thereto.
o Conversely, an order that does not finally
dispose of the case, and does not end the
Courts task of adjudicating the parties
contentions and determining their rights and
liabilities as regards each other, but
obviously indicates that other things remain
to be done by the Court, is INTERLOCUTORY.
1.24 Remedy to assail an interlocutory order
 Salcedo–Ortanez v. CA – The extraordinary writ of
certiorari is generally not available to challenge an
interlocutory order of a trial court. The proper
remedy in such cases is an ordinary appeal from an
adverse judgment, incorporating in said appeal the
grounds for assailing the interlocutory order.
 Calderon v. Roxas – The remedy against an
interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65
provided that the interlocutory order is rendered
RULE 65 |5
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion. Having chosen the wrong remedy
in questioning the subject interlocutory orders of the
RTC, petitioner's appeal was correctly dismissed by
the CA.
 Joel Galzote y Soriaga v. Jonathan Briones - The denial
of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is
not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order
is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules
of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a
petition for certiorari which can be used only in the
absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain
and speedy remedy.
Thus, a direct resort to a special civil action
for certiorari is an exception rather than the general
rule, and is a recourse that must be firmly grounded
on compelling reasons.
 Rayos v. The City of Manila - An order denying a
motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable.
An order denying a motion to dismiss does not finally
dispose of the case, and in effect, allows the case to
proceed until the final adjudication thereof by the
court. As such, it is merely interlocutory in nature and
thus, not appealable.
 So construed, in Eternal Gardens Memorial Corp. v.
Court of Appeals, the rule of judicial courtesy would
apply only if there is a strong probability that the
issues before the higher court would be rendered
moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of
the proceedings in the lower court.
 Sapphire Securities Phils., Inc v. Khoe – Besides, the
principle of judicial courtesy has already been
abandoned for unnecessarily stalling the regular
course of proceedings. Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, as amended, directs the lower court or
tribunal to proceed with the principal case within 10
days from the filing by a party of a petition for
certiorari with the higher court, absent the issuance
of a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction against it.
 De Leon v. Public Estates - It is true that there are
instances where, even if there is no writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order
issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a
lower court or court of origin to suspend its
proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy. The
principle of judicial courtesy, however, remains to be
the exception rather than the rule.
 Datu Michael Abas Kida et al. V. Senate – The principle
of judicial courtesy is based on the hierarchy of courts

and applies only to lower courts in instances where,
even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or
TRO issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a
lower court to suspend its proceedings for practical
and ethical considerations.
1.26 Errors of judgment and errors of jurisdiction
 First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of CA –
 An error of judgment is one which the court
may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.
 An error of jurisdiction is one where the act
complained of was issued by the court
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion, which is
tantamount to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction and which error is correctible
only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
1.27 Certiorari as the proper remedy despite the availability of
appeal
 Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Spouses Lopez - the Court
has declared that the requirement that there must be
no appeal, or any plain speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law admits of exceptions,
such as:
(a) when it is necessary to prevent
irreparable damages and injury to a party;
(b) where the trial judge capriciously and
whimsically exercised his judgment;
(c) where there may be danger of a failure of
justice;
(d) where an appeal would be slow,
inadequate, and insufficient;
(e) where the issue raised is one purely of
law;
(f) where public interest is involved; and
(g) in case of urgency.
1.28 Distinction between Rule 65 and Rule 64
 Pates v. COMELEC - Procedurally, the most patent
difference between the two i.e., the exception that
Section 2, Rule 64 refers to is Section 3 which provides
for a special period for the filing of petitions for
certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC
en banc. The period is 30 days from notice of the
decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that Rule 65
provides), with the intervening period used for the
filing of any motion for reconsideration deductible
from the originally-granted 30 days (instead of the
fresh period of 60 days that Rule 65 provides).
RULE 65 |6
1.29 Three material dates that must be stated in a petition
for certiorari
 Lapid v. Laurea - There are three material dates that
must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought
under Rule 65.
 First, the date when notice of the judgment
or final order or resolution was received;
 Second, the date when a motion for new trial
or for reconsideration was filed; and
 Third, the date when notice of the denial
thereof was received.
1.30 Rule on substantial compliance with the requirements
of Section 3, Rule 46
 Santos v. Litton Mills Incorporated – SC held that the
mention of the parties respective counsels addresses
constitutes substantial compliance with the
requirements of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of
Court which provides in part that [t]he petition shall
contain the full names and actual addresses of all the
petitioners and respondents.
1.31 Procedural flaw on the petition merits its outright
dismissal
 Vicencio v. Villar - Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of
Court provides that a pleading required to be verified
which contains a verification based on "information
and belief" or "knowledge, information and belief,"
shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. A pleading,
therefore, in which the verification is based merely on
the party’s knowledge and belief – as in the instant
Petition – produces no legal effect, subject to the
discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be
remedied.
1.32 Factual determination in certiorari
 Maralit v. PNB - In a special civil action for certiorari,
the Court of Appeals has ample authority to make its
own factual determination. The Court of Appeals can
grant a petition for certiorari when, as in the present
case, it finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion by disregarding evidence material to the
controversy. To make this finding, the Court of
Appeals necessarily has to look at the evidence and
make its own factual determination.
1.33 Special civil action for certiorari in Alternative Dispute
Resolution
A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC
 Rule 19.26. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals. - When
the Regional Trial Court, in making a ruling under the
Special ADR Rules, has acted without or in excess of

its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there
is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a party may file
a special civil action for certiorari to annul or set aside
a ruling of the Regional Trial Court.
A special civil action for certiorari may be
filed against the following orders of the court.
a. Holding that the arbitration agreement is
inexistent, invalid or unenforceable;
b. Reversing the arbitral tribunal’s preliminary
determination upholding its jurisdiction;
c. Denying the request to refer the dispute to
arbitration;
d. Granting or refusing an interim relief;
e. Denying a petition for the appointment of an
arbitrator;
f. Confirming, vacating or correcting a domestic
arbitral award;
g. Suspending the proceedings to set aside an
international commercial arbitral award and referring
the case back to the arbitral tribunal;
h. Allowing a party to enforce an international
commercial arbitral award pending appeal;
i. Adjourning or deferring a ruling on whether to set
aside, recognize and or enforce an international
commercial arbitral award;
j. Allowing a party to enforce a foreign arbitral award
pending appeal; and
k. Denying a petition for assistance in taking evidence.
 Rule 19.27. Form.
 The petition shall be accompanied by a
certified true copy of the questioned
judgment, order or resolution of the
Regional Trial Court, copies of all pleadings
and documents relevant and pertinent
thereto, and a sworn certification of non-
forum shopping as provided in the Rules of
Court.
 The petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court
of the Court of Appeals docketing fees and
other lawful fees of P3,500.00 and deposit
the sum of P500.00 for costs.
 Rule 19.28. When to file petition. - The petition must
be filed with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution
sought to be annulled or set aside. No extension of
time to file the petition shall be allowed.
 Rule 19.29. Arbitral tribunal a nominal party in the
petition. - As nominal party, the arbitral tribunal shall
not be required to submit any pleadings or written
RULE 65 |7
submissions to the court. The arbitral tribunal or an
arbitrator may, however, submit such pleadings or
written submissions if the same serves the interest of
justice.
 Rule 19.30. Court to dismiss petition. - if it fails to
comply with Rules 19.27 and 19.28 above, or upon
consideration of the ground alleged and the legal
briefs submitted by the parties
 Rule 19.31. Order to comment. - If the petition is
sufficient in form and substance to justify such
process, the Court of Appeals shall immediately issue
an order requiring the respondent or respondents to
comment on the petition within a non-extendible
period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
thereof.
 Rule 19.32. Arbitration may continue despite petition
for certiorari. - Should the arbitral tribunal continue
with the proceedings, the arbitral proceedings and
any award rendered therein will be subject to the
final outcome of the pending petition for certiorari.
 Rule 19.33. Prohibition against injunctions. - The
Court of Appeals shall not, during the pendency of the
proceedings before it, prohibit or enjoin the
commencement of arbitration, the constitution of the
arbitral tribunal, or the continuation of arbitration.
 Rule 19.34. Proceedings after comment is filed. - After
the comment is filed, or the time for the filing thereof
has expired, the court shall render judgment granting
the relief prayed for or to which the petitioner is
entitled, or denying the same, within a non-
extendible period of fifteen (15) days.
 Rule 19.35. Service and enforcement of order or
judgment. - A certified copy of the judgment
rendered in accordance with the last preceding
section shall be served upon the Regional Trial Court
concerned in such manner as the Court of Appeals
may direct, and disobedience thereto shall be
punished as contempt.
1.34 Certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to
raise constitutional issues
 Ermita v. Aldecoa-Delorino – Petitions for certiorari
and prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise
constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or
nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive
officials.
2. Petition for Prohibition
 Directed against whom - any tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions
 Under what circumstances can be initiated –

1. without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
2. there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law
 Who may initiate – a person aggrieved thereby
 How to initiate – by a verified petition in the proper
court
 What to allege in the petition – by alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent to desist from further
proceedings in the action or matter specified therein,
or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require.
 What to accompany the petition - The petition shall
likewise be accompanied by
1. a certified true copy of the judgment, order
or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and
pertinent thereto, and
2. a sworn certification of non-forum shopping
as provided in the third paragraph of section
3, Rule 46.
2.1 Nature of prohibition as a remedy
 Holy Spirit Homeowners’ Association v. Defensor - A
petition for prohibition is also not the proper remedy
to assail an IRR issued in the exercise of a quasi-
legislative function. Prohibition lies against judicial or
ministerial functions, but not against legislative or
quasi-legislative functions.
2.2 Requisites of writs of prohibition
 Rivera v. Espiritu - For writs of prohibition, the
requisites are:
(1) the impugned act must be that of a "tribunal,
corporation, board, officer, or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions;" and
(2) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law."
2.3 Prohibition is an appropriate remedy to raise
constitutional issues
 Francisco Jr. v. Toll Regulatory Board - Petitions for
certiorari and prohibition are, as here, appropriate
remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review
and/or prohibit or nullify, when proper, acts of
legislative and executive officials.
3. Petition for Mandamus
RULE 65 |8
 Directed against whom - any tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person
 Under what circumstances can be initiated - When
any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
1. unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station, or
2. unlawfully excludes another from the use
and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled, and
3. there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law
 Who can initiate - person aggrieved thereby
 How to initiate – by filing a verified petition in the
proper court
 What to allege in the petition – by alleging
1. the facts with certainty and
2. praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent, immediately
or at some other time to be specified by the
court, to do the act required to be done to
protect the rights of the petitioner, and
3. to pay the damages sustained by the
petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of
the respondent.
4. The petition shall also contain a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of section 3,
Rule 46.
3.1 The nature and office of the remedy of mandamus
 Special People, Inc. v. Canada – The earliest writs
were in the form of letters missive, and were mere
personal commands. The command was a law in
itself, from which there was no appeal. The writ of
mandamus was not only declaratory of a duty under
an existing law, but was a law in itself that imposed
the duty, the performance of which it commanded.
Early on, the writ of mandamus was
particularly used to compel public authorities to
return the petitioners to public offices from which
they had been unlawfully removed.
Mandamus was, therefore, originally a
purely prerogative writ emanating from the King
himself, superintending the police and preserving the
peace within the realm.
3.2 Meaning of purely ministerial act or duty
 Special People, Inc. v. Canada – 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.
3.3 Mandamus, meaning (“we command”)
 Eng v. Lee - 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.
3.4 Two situations when a writ of mandamus may issue
 Abaga v. Panes – there are two situations when a writ
of mandamus may issue:
(1) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station; or (ministerial duty)
(2) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is
entitled. (right that is clear and certain, one that has
been established by law)
3.5 Requisites of mandamus
 Before mandamus issued, the following requisites
should be satisfied:
1. Petitioner must show a clear right to the act
demanded; thus, it will never be issued in
doubtful cases;
2. Respondent must have the duty to perform
the act because the same is mandated by
law;
3. Respondent unlawfully neglects the
performance of the duty enjoined by law;
4. The act to be performed is ministerial;
5. There is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.
3.6 Discretionary and ministerial act, distinguished
 Roble Arrastre, Inc. v. Villaflor –
 "Discretion," when applied to public
functionaries, means a power or right
conferred upon them by law or acting
officially, under certain circumstances,
RULE 65 |9
uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience
of others.
 A purely ministerial act or duty in
contradiction to a discretional act 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.
3.7 Instances when mandamus shall prosper to compel a
discretionary act
 Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Cunning, Inc –
While, ordinarily, mandamus will not prosper to
compel a discretionary act, the writ shall issue in
instances of gross abuse of discretion, manifest
injustice or palpable excess of authority, equivalent to
denial of a settled right to which petitioner is entitled;
and when there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy.
3.8 Rights are well-defined, clear and certain in mandamus
 De Serra v. Salas – A rule long familiar is that
mandamus never issues in doubtful cases. It requires
a showing of a complete and clear legal right in the
petitioner to the performance of ministerial acts. In
varying language, the principle echoed and re-echoed
is that legal rights may be enforced by mandamus
only if those rights are well-defined, clear and certain.
3.9 When mandamus not proper
 Special People, Inc. v. Canada - We dismiss the
present recourse because the petitioner failed to
exhaust the available administrative remedies, and
because it failed to show that it was legally entitled to
demand the performance of the act by the
respondents.
Another reason for denying due course to
this review is that the petitioner did not establish that
the grant of its application for the CNC was a purely
ministerial in nature on the part of RD Lipayon.
Hence, mandamus was not a proper remedy.
 Tangonan v. Paño - The writ will not issue to compel
an official to do anything which it is not his duty to do
or to which it is his duty not to do, or give to the
applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law.
On the part of the party petitioner, it is
essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that
he should have a clear legal right to the thing

demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the
respondent to perform the act required.
 Dacudao v. SOJ - The main objective of mandamus is
to compel the performance of a ministerial duty on
the part of the respondent. Plainly enough, the writ
of mandamus does not issue to control or review the
exercise of discretion or to compel a course of
conduct.
3.10 Petition for mandamus must be instituted by a party
aggrieved
 Guingona v. COMELEC - If the petition is anchored on
the people’s right to information on matters of public
concern, any citizen can be the real party in interest.
The requirement of personal interest is satisfied by
the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and
therefore, part of the general public which possesses
the right.
There is no need to show any special interest
in the result. It is sufficient that petitioners are
citizens and, as such, are interested in the faithful
execution of the laws.
3.11 Mandamus distinguished from prohibition
 Ongusco v. Malones –
 In a petition for prohibition against any
tribunal, corporation, board, or person --
whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or
ministerial functions -- who has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner
prays that judgment be rendered,
commanding the respondent to desist from
further proceeding in the action or matter
specified in the petition.
 On the other hand, the remedy of
mandamus lies to compel performance of a
ministerial duty. The petitioner for such a
writ should have a well-defined, clear and
certain legal right to the performance of the
act, and it must be the clear and imperative
duty of respondent to do the act required to
be done.
 Morfe v. The Justice of Peace Caloocan –
 The remedy of mandamus has for its object
to compel an inferior tribunal in the proper
case, as a justice of the peace court, to
comply with a function which the law
specially prescribes as a duty resulting from
its office when there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy
R U L E 6 5 | 10
 That of prohibition has for its object that of
preventing an inferior tribunal in the proper
case, as a justice of the peace court, from
executing or continuing to execute an act in
excess of its jurisdiction, when there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law
3.12 Prescriptive period for filing mandamus
 Madrigal v. Lecaros - The unbending jurisprudence in
this jurisdiction is to the effect that a petition for quo
warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public
office must be filed within one (1) year from the date
the petitioner is ousted from his position
3.13 Declaratory Relief treated as mandamus
 Salvacion v. Central Bank – This Court has no original
and exclusive jurisdiction over a petition for
declaratory relief. However, exceptions to this rule
have been recognized. Thus, where the petition has
far-reaching implications and raises questions that
should be resolved, it may be treated as one for
mandamus.
3.14 Exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies for
mandamus to lie
 Valmonte v. Belmonte - The principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is subject to settled
exceptions, among which is when only a question of
law is involved.
4. When and where petition filed
 When to file –
1. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty
(60) days from notice of the judgment, order
or resolution.
2. 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
said motion.
 Where to file – The petition shall be filed in the:
1. Supreme Court or,
2. Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction
over the territorial area as defined by the
Supreme Court, if it relates to the acts or
omissions of a lower court or of a
corporation, board, officer or person
3. Court of Appeals whether or not the same is
in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
4. Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction

5. Court of Appeals if it involves the acts or
omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
otherwise provided by law or these Rules
 Mandamus on act or omission of MTC or RTS in
election cases – petition shall be filed exclusively with
COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
4.1 Interpretation of the phrase “in the aid of its appellate
jurisdiction”
 Galang v. Geronimo – Interpreting the phrase "in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction," the Court held in J.M.
Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo, et al. that if a case may
be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal
or body, then said court or judicial tribunal or body
has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of
certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Since it is the COMELEC which has
jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the
decision of the regional trial court in election contests
involving elective municipal officials, then it is also the
COMELEC which has jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
4.2 Period to file Motion for Extension absolutely not
prohibited
 Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc. – The
general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be
filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.
Under exceptional circumstances, however, and
subject to the sound discretion of the Court, said
period may be extended.
That no mention is made in the above-
quoted amended Section 4 of Rule 65 of a motion for
extension, unlike in the previous for formulation,
does not make the filing of such pleading absolutely
prohibited.
Absent such prohibition, motions for
extensions are allowed, subject to the Court’s sound
discretion. The present petition may thus be allowed,
having been filed within the extension sought and, at
all events, given its merits.
 Exceptional and meritorious cases:
(1) most persuasive and weighty reasons;
(2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure;
(3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately
paying within a reasonable time from the time of the
default;
(4) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances;
R U L E 6 5 | 11
(5) the merits of the case;
(6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules;
(7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory;
(8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby;
(9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
without appellant’s fault;
(10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances
attendant to each case;
(11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
(12) importance of the issues involved; and
(13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided
by all the attendant circumstances.
5. Respondents and costs in certain cases
 Requirement to join the person or persons interested
in sustaining the proceedings - When the petition
filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court,
quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private
respondent or respondents with such public
respondent or respondents;
1. the person or persons interested in
sustaining the proceedings in the court
2. it shall be the duty of such private
respondents to appear and defend, both in
his or their own behalf and in behalf of the
public respondent or respondents affected
by the proceedings
The costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the
petitioner shall be against the private respondents
only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial
agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
 When public respondent to appear or file answer -
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court
where the petition is pending, the public respondents
shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to
the petition or any pleading therein.
 Effect if the case is elevated to higher court – If the
case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the
public respondents shall be included therein as
nominal parties. However, unless otherwise
specifically directed by the court, they shall not
appear or participate in the proceedings therein.
6. Order to comment
 When to file – if the petition is sufficient in form and
substance to justify such process

 Contents of the order – the court shall issue an order:
1. requiring the respondent or respondents to
comment on the petition within ten (10)
days from receipt of a copy thereof
2. 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
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals,
1. the provisions of section 2, Rule 56, shall be
observed.
2. Before giving due course thereto, the court
may require the respondents to file their
comment to, and not a motion to dismiss,
the petition.
3. Thereafter, the court may require the filing
of a reply and such other responsive or other
pleadings as it may deem necessary and
proper.
7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief
 Order to expedite proceeding and injunctive relief -
The court in which the petition is filed may issue
orders:
1. expediting the proceedings
2. it may also grant a temporary restraining
order or a writ of preliminary injunction for
the preservation of the rights of the parties
pending such proceedings.
 Effect of filing the petition - The petition shall not
interrupt the course of the principal case unless a
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary
injunction has been issued against the public
respondent from further proceeding in the case.
8. Proceedings after comment is filed
 When to hear the case or submit memoranda –
1. After the comment or other pleadings
required by the court are filed
2. or the time for the filing thereof has expired
 When to render judgement - after such hearing or
submission of memoranda or the expiration of the
period for the filing thereof the court finds that the
allegations of the petition are true, it shall render
judgment for the relief prayed for or to which the
petitioner is entitled.
 When to dismiss the petition - if it finds the same to
be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for
delay, or that the questions raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration.
R U L E 6 5 | 12
 Effect of dismissal – The court may award in favor of
the respondent treble costs solidarily against the
petitioner and counsel in addition to subjecting
counsel to administrative sanctions under Rule 139
and Rule 139-B of ROC.
 Effect on erring lawyers – The court may impose
motou proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, ither
disciplinary and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari.
9. Service and enforcement of order or judgment
 To whom order or judgment serve - A certified copy
of the judgment rendered in accordance with the last
preceding section shall be served upon the court,
quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person concerned in such manner as the
court may direct.
 Effect of disobedience to the order or judgment -
disobedience thereto shall be punished as contempt.
An execution may issue for any damages or costs
awarded in accordance with section 1 of Rule 39.
10. Cases originally filed in CA under Rule 46
This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto under Rule 65 and
Rule 47.
 Title of Cases - In all cases originally filed in the Court
of Appeals, the party instituting the action shall be
called the petitioner and the opposing party the
respondent. Sec 1, Rule 46
 To what actions applicable - shall apply to original
actions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo
warranto. Sec 2, Rule 46
 Rules governing certiorari, prohibition, mandamus
and quo warranto - for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus by Rule 65, and for quo warranto by Rule
66.
 Contents and filing of petition; effect of
noncompliance with requirement – The petition shall
contain the:
1. full names and actual addresses of all the
petitioners and respondents
2. concise statement of the matters involved
3. the factual background of the case
4. the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed
for. Sec 3, Rule 46
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall
indicate:
1. the material dates showing when notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution
subject thereof was received
2. when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, if any, was filed
 R U L E 6 5 | 13

3. when notice of the denial thereof was 2. by his voluntary submission to such
received jurisdiction.
4. seven (7) clearly legible copies together with  Action by Court – The court may:
proof of service thereof on the respondent 1. dismiss the petition outright with specific
with the original copy intended for the court reasons for such dismissal or
indicated as such by the petitioner 2. require the respondent to file a comment on
5. clearly legible duplicate original or certified the same within ten (10) days from notice.
true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, Only pleadings required by the court shall be allowed.
or ruling subject thereof, such material All other pleadings and papers, may be filed only with
portions of the record as are referred to leave of court.
therein, and other documents relevant or  Determination of factual issues - Whenever necessary
pertinent thereto. The certification shall be to resolve factual issues, the court itself may conduct
accomplished by the proper clerk of court or hearings thereon or delegate the reception of the
by his duly authorized representative, or by evidence on such issue to any of its members or to an
the proper officer of the court, tribunal, appropriate court, agency or office.
agency or office involved or by his duly  Effect of failure to file comment. — When no
authorized representative. The other comment is filed by any of the respondents, the case
requisite number of copies of the petition 1. may be decided on the basis of the record,
shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain 2. without prejudice to any disciplinary action
copies of all documents attached to the which the court may take against the
original. disobedient party.
6. The petitioner shall also submit together
with the petition a sworn certification that
he has not theretofore commenced any
other action involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency; if there is such other
action or proceeding, he must state the
status of the same; and if he should
thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or
any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes
to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and
other tribunal or agency thereof within five
(5) days therefrom.
7. The petitioner shall pay the corresponding
docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of
court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for
costs at the time of the filing of the petition.
 Effect of failure to comply with requirements - The
failure of the petitioner to comply any of the
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petition. Sec 3, Rule 46
 Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how acquired
- The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the respondent:
1. By the service on him of its order or
resolution indicating its initial action on the
petition or