Special Civil Actions Reviewer

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 1 RULE 62: INTERPLEADER

INTERPLEADER: a special civil action filed by a person against whom two conflicting claims are made upon the same subject matter and over which he claims no interest, to compel the claimants to interplead and to litigate their conflicting claims among themselves. REQUISITES: (NETO) 1. The plaintiff claims NO INTEREST in the subject matter or his claim thereto is not disputed; 2. The parties to the interpleader must make EFFECTIVE CLAIMS; 3. There must be at least TWO OR MORE conflicting claimants; and 4. The subject matter must be ONE AND THE SAME. PURPOSE: To protect a person not against double liability but against DOUBLE VEXATION in respect of one’s liability PROCEDURE: 1. FILING: A complaint for interpleader is filed by the person against whom the conflicting claims are made. Docket, other lawful fees, costs and other litigation expenses shall be borne by the complainant; but these will constitute a lien or charge upon the subject matter of the action, unless the court hold otherwise. WHEN TO FILE: within a reasonable time after a dispute has arisen without waiting to be sued by either of the contending claimants. 2. COURT ORDER: Upon filing of the complaint, the court shall issue an order requiring the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another; the order shall be served upon the conflicting claimants together with the summons and a copy of the complaint; court may include an order directing that the subject matter of the action be paid or delivered to the court. 3. MOTION TO DISMISS: Within the time for filing an answer (15 days), each claimant may file a motion to dismiss on the grounds specified in Rule 16 and on the ground of impropriety of the action for interpleader. 4. The period to file an answer is interrupted or tolled by the filing of the motion to dismiss. If the motion is denied, the movant may file his answer within the remaining period to answer, but which shall NOT BE LESS THAN 5 days in any event from the notice of denial of the motion.

5.

6.

ANSWER: The answer shall be filed within 15 days from the service of summons upon him; setting forth the claim of the claiming party and shall be served upon each of the conflicting claimants. Non‐answering claimant within the reglementary period will be declared in default and a judgment will be rendered barring him from any claim in respect to the subject matter of the action. REPLY: A reply to the answer may also be filed by each of the conflicting claimants. Other pleadings that may be filed: COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS‐ CLAIMS, THIRD‐PARTY COMPLAINTS and RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS.

7.

PRE‐TRIAL: A pre‐trial will be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Court.

8.

DETERMINATION: After the filing of pleadings and pre‐trial, the court shall proceed to determine their respective rights and adjudicate their several claims. COURT WITH JURISDICTION MTC RTC In Metro Manila Personal property
NIKKI HIPOLITO | A2012

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 2 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

CASE DOCTRINES Ocampo v. Tirona 6. Sy‐Quia v. Sheriff of Ilocos Sur An action for interpleader is a remedy whereby a person who has a property Interpleader is an action employed to avoid double vexation, not double liability, whether personal or real, in his possession, or an obligation to render wholly or for the same liability. partially, without claiming any right in both, or claims an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the confliction claimants, comes to court and asks that 7. De Jesus v. Sociedad Arendataria de Galleras de Pasay the persons who claim the said property or who consider themselves entitled to To avoid risks of paying damages for withholding payment of claims, an demand compliance with the obligation, be required to litigate among themselves, interpleader is proper. in order to determine finally who is entitled to one or the other thing. 8. Mesina v. IAC An action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know the person to An interpleader must be filed within a reasonable time from notice in good faith. whom to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on the property. 9. Vda. De Camilo v. Arcamo Praxedes Alvarez v. Commonwealth An action for interpleader is IMPROPER when no conflicting claims are made There must be an active assertion or demand by the party with conflicting against the respondents. interests. It is necessary that there be a declaration before the defendant may litigate among themselves and file a complaint of interpleader. 10. Makati Development Corp. v. Tanjuatco Failure of Rule 5, § 19 of the ROC to make Rule 62 (on Interpleader) applicable to Wack Wack Golf and Country Club v. Won inferior courts, merely implies that the same are not bound to follow Rule 62 in An action for interpleader should be filed within a reasonable time after a dispute dealing with cases of interpleading, but may apply thereto the general rules on has arisen without waiting to be sued by either of the contending claimants. procedure applicable to ordinary civil action in said courts. Otherwise, he may be barred by laches or undue delay. 11. RCBC v. Metro Container Corp. Ramos v. Ramos The reason for interpleader ceased when the MeTC rendered judgment directing This is case is more of an action of quieting of title, rather than an interpleader as defendant to pay petitioner whatever rentals were due. filed. It sought to resolve the ownership of the land and was not directed against the personal liability of any particular person.

Beltran v. People’s Homesite and Housing Corp. An action for interpleader requires that the conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against the plaintiff‐in‐interpleader who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants.


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 3 RULE 63: DECLARATORY RELIEF AND OTHER SIMILAR REMEDIES

DECLARATORY RELIEF: a special civil action by any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument or whose rights are affected by a statute, ordinance, executive order or regulation to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute and for a declaration of his rights and duties REQUISITES: (SANDRA) 1. The SUBJECT MATTER of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance 2. There must be an ACTUAL JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY or the “ripening seeds” of one between persons whose interests are adverse 3. There must have been NO BREACH of the documents in question 4. The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are DOUBTFUL and require judicial construction 5. The issue must be RIPE FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, as, for example, where all administrative remedies have been exhausted 6. ADEQUATE RELIEF is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding PURPOSE: To relieve the litigants of the common law rule that no declaration of rights may be judicially adjudged unless a right has been violated and for the violation of which relief may be granted • Declaratory judgments are to be distinguished from those which are advisory in character, since they are res judicata and binding upon the parties and those in privity with them, and from decisions of abstract or moot questions since they must involve a real controversy. SUBJECT MATTER (Exclusive list) 1. Deed 2. Will 3. Contract or other written instrument 4. Statute 5. Executive Order or Regulation 6. Ordinance 7. Any other governmental regulation

Writ of Execution Breach or Violation of Right Motion to Dismiss

ORDINARY ACTION YES

DECLARATORY RELIEF NO

YES

NO

RULES 16 AND 17

Additional grounds: 1. Decision will not terminate the uncertainty or controversy 2. Declaration is unnecessary and improper under the circumstances

“Other Similar Remedies” 1. Action for Reformation of an Instrument Only time when the 2. Action to Quiet Title court may NOT dismiss 3. Action to Consolidate Ownership the controversy ACTUAL CONTROVERSY: controversy that is definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. It must be real and substantial controversy admitting of a specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character. It means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory. JUSTICIABILITY: the court must be satisfied that an actual controversy or the ripening seeds of one, exists between parties, all of whom are sui juris and before the court and the declaration sought will be a practical help in ending the controversy REQUISITES FOR JUSTICIABILITY 1. There must be REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST 2. Asserting ADVERSE CLAIMS 3. Presenting a RIPE ISSUE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO GRANT DECLARATORY RELIEF WHEN: 1. A decision on the petition will not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action 2. A declaration or construction is unnecessary and improper under the circumstances as when the instrument or the statute has already been breached


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 4 COURT WITH JURISDICTION: RTC (issues are NOT capable of pecuniary estimation) PARTIES • PETITIONER a. Subject matter is a deed, will, contract or other written instrument i. Persons interested in the deed, will, contract, etc… b. Subject matter is a statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance i. Persons whose rights are affected by the statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance c. Others i. All persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration • Failure to implead such persons does NOT affect the jurisdiction of the court over the petition; their rights are NOT to be prejudiced by their non‐inclusion. WHEN TO FILE: before there occurs any breach or violation of the deed, contract, statute, ordinance or executive order or regulation. CONVERSION: If before the final termination of the case, a breach or violation of the instrument or statute occurs, then the same may be converted into an ordinary action. WHEN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF WILL NOT LIE 1. Action to obtain judicial declaration of citizenship 2. Action to establish illegitimate filiation and actions to determine hereditary rights 3. Where the terms of the assailed ordinances are not ambiguous or of doubtful meaning 4. The subject of the action is a court decision 5. Action to resolve a political question or issue 6. Those determinative of the issues rather than a construction of definite status, rights and relations 7. Where the contract or statute on which the action is based has been breached 8. Action is merely to seek advisory opinion from the court on a moot question 9. When the petition is based on the happening of a contingent event 10. When petitioner is not the real party‐in‐interest 11. Where administrative remedies have not yet been exhausted

ACTION FOR REFORMATION: action brought to reform the instrument evidencing the contract; presupposed that there is nothing wrong with the contract itself because there is a meeting of the minds between the parties. The contract is to be reformed because despite the meeting of the minds of the parties as to the object and cause of the contract, the instrument which is supposed to embody the agreement of the parties does not reflect the true agreement by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident. Reformation of the instrument CANNOT be brought to reform: 1. Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed 2. Will 3. Void agreement • Where the consent of a party to a contract has been procured by fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, and an instrument was executed by the parties in accordance with the contract, the remedy is to file an action for the annulment of the contract, not action for reformation. CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP: a petition whereby a party seeks to consolidate ownership or title upon the person of the vendee whenever the seller fails to exercise his right of redemption within the stipulated period. • LEGAL REDEMPTION: “retracto legal;” a statutory mandated redemption of a property previously sold. • CONVENTIONAL REDEMPTION: “pacto de retro;” sale is one that is not mandated by the statute but one which takes place because of the stipulation of the parties to the sale. PURPOSE: To register the property QUIETING OF TITLE: an action to determine ownership of a property PURPOSE: To remove a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein; as a preventive remedy to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein • Plaintiff need not in possession of the real property before he may bring the action as long as he can show that he has a legal or an equitable title to the property which is the subject matter of the action.


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 5 CASE DOCTRINES 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Allied Broadcasting Center v. Republic A petition for declaratory relief is not among those petitions within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court even if only questions of law are involved. Jurisdiction for petition for declaratory relief is lodged with the RTC (issues are incapable of pecuniary estimation). Salvacion v. Central Bank The Supreme Court has no original and exclusive jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief. HOWEVER, exceptions to this rule have been recognized—where the petition has far‐reaching implications and raises questions that should be resolved, it may be treated as one for mandamus. Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy Requisites for Petition for Declaratory Relief: a. Justiciable controversy b. Controversy between persons with adverse interests c. Party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy d. Issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination PACU v. Secretary of Education No justiciable controversy because there were no threats to revoke permits in the first place. Cutaran v. DENR No justiciable controversy because the application for a land claim has yet to be approved. Justiciable controversy: a definite and concrete dispute touching on legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests Caltex v. Palomar There is justiciable controversy because its material will be subject to a fraud order if implemented. Elements of justiciable controversy: a. Assertion of a claim b. Denial of a right c. Legal interest d. Ripe for adjudication

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Mirando v. Wellington Ty Requisites are wanting. At no time did the petitioners (squatters) acquire any right whatsoever on the parcels of land. Payment of nominal rentals is immaterials. Delumen v. Republic Justiciable controversy exists when there is an antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other concerning a real, and not a mere theoretical question or issue. Lim v. Republic Generally, a declaratory relief cannot be invoked solely to determine or try issues or to determine moot, abstract or theoretical questions. This includes resolving doubts concerning one’s citizenship. De la Llana v. COMELEC The holding of a referendum is a political and non‐justiciable question, involving as it does the wisdom, no more or less, of the decision to call for a referendum. The power to determine when a referendum should be called and what matter is important for referral to the people, resides in the political branch of the government, the exercise of which involves consideration of a multitude of factors, normally outside the periphery of competence of courts. Samson v. Andal If there has been a violation, declaratory relief cannot be granted. After the breach, the regular remedy obtains. Ollada v. Central Bank A complaint for declaratory relief will not prosper if filed after a contract, statute or right has been breached or violated. An action for declaratory relief should be filed before there has been a breach of a contract, statute or right. An action for declaratory relief is proper only if adequate relief is not available through the means of other existing forms of action or proceeding. Sarmiento v. Capapas If an action for declaratory relief is to be allowed after a breach of the statute, the decision of the court in the action for declaratory relief would prejudge the action for violation of the barter law and violates the rule on multiplicity of suits. Tanda v. Aldaya A court decision cannot be the subject of declaratory relief for the reason that if a party is not agreeable to a decision either on questions of la or of fact, he may file


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 6 with the court a motion for reconsideration or a new trial in order that the defect may be corrected. The fundamental reason why the decision of the court cannot be subject of declaratory relief is predicated upon the principle of res judicata. Parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issues more than once. 15. Edades v. Edades Petition for declaratory relief is an improper action in the determination of hereditary rights. 16. Degala v. Reyes Non‐joinder of the necessary parties would deprive the declaration of that final and pacifying function it is calculated to observe, as they would not be bound by the

declaration and may raise the identical issue. The absence of the defendant with such adverse interest is a jurisdictional defect, and no declaratory judgment can be rendered. 17. Baguio Citizen’s Action v. City Council A declaration on the nullity of the ordinance would give the squatters no right which they are entitled to protect. They are not necessary parties because the question involved is the power of the Municipal Council to enact the Ordinances in question.


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 7 RULE 64: REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMELEC AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT

SCOPE: Review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of COMELEC and COA PETITION: Certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65, not Rule 45 • Petitioner must anchor the petition on jurisdictional grounds—that the commission committed GADLEJ • Petition cannot question the findings of fact of the commission where such findings are supported by substantial evidence—final and non‐ reviewable. TIME TO FILE: 30 days from notice of judgment If motion for reconsideration is denied, the petition must be filed within the REMAINING period, but which shall not be less than 5 days in any event, from the notice of denial. BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PETITION 1. Verified petition an in 18 copies—accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment 2. Aggrieved party as petitioner while commission concerned and person interested in sustaining the judgment as respondents 3. Findings of fact of the commission supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non‐reviewable 4. Petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time 5. Petition shall be accompanied by a sworn certification against forum shopping 6. Proof of service of its copy on the commission concerned and the adverse party, and of payment of docket and other lawful fees. • Failure to comply with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for its dismissal. ORDER TO COMMENT; OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL Order to Comment: if the petition is found to be sufficient in form and substance; file within 10 days from notice; 18 copies with the original to be accompanied by certified true copies of the material portions of the records referred to with other supporting papers. No other pleading may be filed by any party unless required or allowed by the court.

Outright Dismissal: 1. if petition is not sufficient in form and substance 2. petition is filed manifestly for delay 3. the question raised is too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings EFFECT OF FILING: Filing of a Petition for Rule 64 does NOT stay the execution of the judgment, final order or resolution of the commission concerned, unless the Supreme Court directs otherwise. A TRO or writ of preliminary injunction is required to prevent the execution of the judgment, final order or resolution of the commission concerned because the filing of the petition does NOT interrupt the course of the principal case. ORAL ARGUMENTS, MEMORANDA, SUBMISSION FOR DECISION Upon the filing of the comments, or upon the expiration of the period to do so (10 days from notice), the case shall be deemed submitted for decision EXCEPT if the Court decides to set the case for oral arguments or requires the parties to submit memoranda. RULE 64 RULE 65 Object Directed only to the Directed to any tribunal, board judgments, final orders or or officer, exercising JUDICIAL resolutions of COMELEC or or QUASI‐JUDICIAL functions COA Period 30 days from notice of 60 days from notice of judgment or resolution judgment or resolution Motion for If MR is denied, file petition If MR is denied, FRESH PERIOD Recon within the REMAINING of 60 days from notice of denial PERIOD, but which shall not be within which to file the petition less than 5 days Certification Certify ALL ANNEXES Certify only ORDER ASSAILED


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 8

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

CASE DOCTRINES

Aratuc v. COMELEC Under the 1973 Constitution and statutory provisions, the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over orders and decisions of the COMELEC is NOT as broad as it used to be and should be confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process. Dario v. Mison The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases emanating from the Civil Service Commission is limited to complaints of lack of excess of jurisdiction, complaints that justify certiorari under Rule 65. Ambil Jr. v. COMELEC The mode by which a decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc may be elevated to the Supreme Court is by the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, which requires that no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law is available. A Motion for Reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided for by law. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition. ABS‐CBN v. COMELEC The procedural requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the principle of social justice or the protection of labor, when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available. Repol v. COMELEC Interlocutory orders merely rule on an incidental issue and do not terminate or finally dispose of the case as they leave something to be done before it is finally decided on the merits.



RULE 65: CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS CERTIORARI

WRIT OF CERTIORARI: a writ emanating from a superior court directed against an inferior court, tribunal or officer exercising judicial or quasi‐judicial functions. PURPOSE: To correct errors of jurisdiction REQUISITES (CJ‐WING) 1. There must be a CONTROVERSY. 2. Respondent exercises JUDICIAL OR QUASI‐JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS. 3. Respondents acted WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION or acted with GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION amounting to lack of jurisdiction. 4. There must be NO APPEAL or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. • A petition for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment as when a court or body acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. • Writ of certiorari is granted to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. • The filing of the petition for certiorari does NOT interrupt the course of the principal action nor the running of the reglementary periods involved in the proceeding, unless an application for a restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction to the appellate court is granted. • In summary proceedings, petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against an interlocutory order of the court are NOT allowed. • Certiorari is and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence. The existence and availability of the right to appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because of the requirements for certiorari is that there is no appeal. • Generally, certiorari is not available when the period for appeal has lapsed. However, certiorari may still be invoked in the following instances:

When appeal is lost without the appellants negligence When public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates When the broader interest of justice so requires When the writs issued are null and void When the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority

o o o o o

RULE 45 Petition for review on certiorari Continuation of the appellate process over the original case Corrects error of judgment: errors of law of law of the lower courts

Appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and RTC Filed within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the MR or MNT (no fresh period) Lower court is not impleaded as a respondent Plain, speedy and adequate relief Does not require a prior MR Stays the judgment appealed from

RULE 65 Petition for certiorari Not a part of the appellate process but an independent action Corrects error of jurisdiction: lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction Special civil action to the Supreme Court or proper court against an inferior court, tribunal or officer exercising judicial or quasi‐judicial functions Filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed or the denial of the MR or MNT (fresh period) Lower court is impleaded as respondent Last resort; cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal Requires a prior MR Does NOT stay the judgment or order subject of the petition unless an injunctive relief is issued


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 10 RESPONDENT MUST EXERCISE JUDICIAL OR QUASI‐JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS • JUDICIAL FUNCTION: 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. • QUASI‐JUDICIAL FUNCTION: action, discretion etc of public administrative officers or bodies, which 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. JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE • Petition for certiorari must be based on jurisdictional grounds because as long as the respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or t in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected by appeal • ERRORS OF JURISDICTION: the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi‐judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. • EXCESS OF JURISDICTION vs. ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION o EXCESS OF JURISDICTION: an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer, is not authorized and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. o ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION: lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine the cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter (lack of power to exercise authority). • GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION: power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility; such capricious, whimsical exercise of judgment by the tribunal exercising judicial or quasi‐judicial functions as to amount to lack of power.

NO APPEAL OR OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY OR ADEQUATE RELIEF • Generally, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non to the filing of a petition for certiorari to allow the court an opportunity to correct its imputed errors. • Certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent court to allow it an opportunity to correct itself. • EXCEPTION: 1. When the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction 2. When the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court 3. 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 4. Where the subject matter of the action is perishable 5. Where under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless 6. Where the petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief 7. Where in a criminal case, relief from order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable 8. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process 9. Where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object 10. Where the issue raised is only purely of law or where public interest is involved



2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

CASE DOCTRINES Tuazon v. Register of Deeds 7. Gold City Integrated Ports System, Inc. v. IAC The extraordinary writ of certiorari may properly issue to nullify only judicial and The test in determining whether or not a judgment or order is final is whether or quasi‐judicial, unlike the writ of prohibition, which may be directed against acts not something remains to be done by the Court. A final judgment, order or decree either judicial or ministerial. is one that finally disposes of, adjudicates or determines the rights or some right or rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on some definite and Certiorari is an action properly laid against governmental bodies, not to private separate branch thereof, and which concludes them until it is reversed or set aside. courts/tribunal/board or officer. 8. St. Peter Memorial Park Inc. v. Campos Meralco Securities Industrial Corp. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals GR: The extraordinary writ of certiorari is improper when an ordinary appeal is Judicial review of the decision of an official or administrative agency exercising available. The writ is granted in cases where it is shown that appeal would be quasi‐judicial functions is proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, grave inadequate, slow, insufficient and will not promptly relieve petitioner from the abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion or in case the administrative decision is injurious effect of the order complained of. corrupt, arbitrary or capricious. 9. Valencia v. CA Angara v. Fedman Development Corp. Certiorari lies against a judgment allowing execution pending appeal, when such Certiorari can only be invoked for an error of jurisdiction, where the act complained writ of execution was issued for “no good reason.” of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi‐judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction or with GADLEJ. 10. National Electrification Administration v. CA Dismissal of appeal for failure to comply with the requisite record of appeal and Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC amended record of appeal amounts to GADLEJ because the lower court merely Findings of the trial court are accorded with great respect absent any evidence gave a vague judgment (of such failure to comply) without saying what the from the respondent, aside from the allegations that valuation was without basis deficiencies of the records were. and purely conjectural. Absent any showing that the trial court committed abuse of discretion, there is no justification as to why the appellate court should interfere 11. Abraham v. NLRC with the exercise of the trial court’s discretion. GR: A MR should be filed before resorting to certiorari, to give the court an opportunity to rectify its own mistake, subject to exceptions (listed above). Big Five Products v. CIR Petiton for certiorari is improper when the legal provision conferring discretion to a 12. Metro Transit Organization Inc. v. CA government body is neither unlimited nor arbitrary, capricious, inquisitorial or Generally, a MR is indispensable before resort to certiorari, subject to certain oppressive in nature, but a sound, legal discretion, limited by the evident purpose exceptions. Certiorari is NOT a shield from the adverse consequences of an of law—to assure the freedom of laborers and employees engaged in union omission to file the required MR. activities, by prohibiting the performance of acts constituting ULP. 13. Conti v. CA Lalican v. Vergara An essential requisite for the availability of the extraordinary remedies under the Certiorari is an improper remedy where a motion to quash in information is denied. Rules is an absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate relief in the ordinary course of law, one which has been so defined as a remedy which would Certiorari may NOT be availed of where it is shown that the respondent court equally be beneficial, speedy and sufficient NOT merely a remedy which at some lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction or committed GAD. Where the court has time in the future will bring about a revival of the judgment complained of in the jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, its questioned acts certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which will promptly relieve the petitioner from would at most constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior court or tribunal certiorari. concerned.


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 12 14. People v. Albano A challenge to the validity of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the acts for which the accused is charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of RA 3019, or the provisions on bribery of the RPC, should be treated only in the same manner as a challenge to the criminal proceeding by way of a motion to quash on the ground provided in Rule 117 § 2 of the ROC (that the facts charged do not constitute an offense). A resolution of the challenge to the validity of the criminal proceeding, on such ground, should be limited to an inquiry whether the facts alleged in the information, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of an offense punishable under RA 3019 or the RPC. 15. Escudero v. Dulay GR: Certiorari will not be a substitute or a cure for failure to file a timely petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. EXCEPT: Where the application of the rule will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice. 16. Leonor v. CA A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be a source of any right or the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. It can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void. 17. Pastor Jr. v. CA Daugher‐in‐law was no party to the lower court proceeding but aggrieved by the decision, and thus can file a petition for certiorari and prohibition. NB: Court was more liberal and in accordance with substantial justice in this case. 18. Chua v. CA When a court commits GADLEJ, the person aggrieved can file a special civil action for certiorari. Only a party‐in‐interest or those aggrieved may file certiorari cases. It is settled that the offended parties in criminal cases have sufficient interest and personality as persons aggrieved to file special civil action of prohibition and certiorari.

19. Tang v. CA Person aggrieved is not to be construed to mean that any person who feels injured by the lower court’s order or decision can question the said court’s disposition via certiorari. It is one who is a party in the proceedings before the lower court. If a non‐party in the proceedings before the lower court has no standing to file a MR, logic would lead us to the conclusion that he would likewise have no standing to question the said order or decision before the appellate court via certiorari. 20. Yuchengco v. CA A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but only upon a clear showing by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also GADLEJ or denied of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void. 21. Castro v. People Errors of judgment cannot be raised in Rule 65, as a writ of certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those involving the commission of GAD. 22. Tanjuan v Phil. Postal Savings Bank Generally, issues of facts cannot be entertained in a petition for certiorari, subject to exceptions: • In NLRC cases, the CA can adjudicate questions of fact. • If the same was raised in the SC, it cannot prosper because the SC cannot receive evidence, although it may have the power to do so. 23. Rodriguez v. Gadiane A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an aggrieved party alleging GADLEJ on the part of the trial court. “Aggrieved parties” are construed to include the State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has in interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such petition questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds.


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 13 PROHIBITION

WRIT OF PROHIBITION: a writ issued by a superior court and directed against and inferior court, corporation, board, officer or other person whether exercising judicial, quasi‐judicial or ministerial functions for the purpose of preventing the latter from usurping jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested. REQUISITES (CJ‐WING) 1. There must be a CONTROVERSY. 2. Respondent exercises JUDICIAL, QUASI‐JUDICIAL OR MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS. 3. Respondents acted WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION or acted with GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION amounting to lack of jurisdiction. 4. There must be NO APPEAL or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. PURPOSE: To secure an order to command the respondent tribunal, board, corporation or officer to desist from further proceedings in the action; to prevent an encroachment, excess, usurpation or assumption of jurisdiction on the part of tribunal, corporation, board or officer. ACTS FAIT ACCOMPLI (ACCOMPLISHED FACTS) GR: Prohibition does NOT ordinarily lie to restrain an act which is already a fait accompli. EXCEPT: To prevent the creation of a new province by those in the corridors of power who could avoid judicial intervention and review by merely speedily and stealthily completing the commission of such illegality. • Prohibition, not mandamus, is the proper remedy when a motion to dismiss is wrongfully denied. PROCEDURE: same with Certiorari, supra PROHIBITION vs. INJUNCTION • PROHIBITION: directed to the court or tribunal directing it to refrain from the performance of acts, which it has no jurisdiction to perform. • INJUNCTION: directed against a party to the action.

PROHIBITION vs. CERTIORARI

PROHIBITION Directed not only to a judicial or a quasi‐ judicial act, but even to a ministerial act Directed to the court itself to restrain it from further proceeding with the case Purpose: To command the respondent to desist from further proceedings

CERTIORARI Seeks to annul a judicial or quasi‐judicial act Directed to the action of the court which is sought to be annulled Purpose: To annul or modify the judgment, order, resolution or proceedings of the public respondent

CASE DOCTRINES 1.

2.

3.

Matugina Integrated Wood Products v. CA Prohibition is a remedy to prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards of persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction or power with which they have not been vested by law. Aurillo v. Rabi Pendency of the special civil action for prohibition will NOT interrupt the investigation in the case. The relief granted in a prohibition is governed by the nature of the grievance proved and the situation at the time of judgment. Although the general rule is that the writ of prohibition issues only to restrain the commission of a future act, and not to undo an act already performed, where anything remains to be done by the court, prohibition will give complete relief, not only by preventing what remains to be done but by undoing what has been done. Morfe v. Justice of the Peace of Caloocan The writ 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 specifically prescribes as a duty resulting from its office when there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy. 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 plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary court of law.



5.

6.

7.

8.

Vergara v. Rugue The office of the extraordinary remedy of prohibition is NOT to correct errors of judgment but to prevent or restrain usurpation by inferior tribunals and to compel them to observe the limitation of their jurisdictions. As a preventive remedy, its function is to restrain the doing of some act to be done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished. Versoza v. Martinez Where the acts have been performed prior to the filing of the injunction suit, the general rule is that consummated acts can no longer be restrained by injunction. However, where the acts are performed after the injunction suit is brought, a defendant may not as a matter of right proceed to perform the acts sought to be restrained and then be heard to assert in the suit that the injunction will not lie because he has performed these acts before final hearing has been had, but after the beginning of the action. An injunctive writ may be issued when the following requisites are estabilished: a. The invasion of the right is material and substantial b. The right of complainant is clear and unmistakable c. There is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage Nacionalista Party v. Bautista The writ of prohibition cannot be availed of as a substitute for quo warranto. This has been allowed, not only against courts and tribunals in order to keep them within the limits of their own jurisdiction and to prevent them from encroaching upon the jurisdiction of other tribunals, but also in appropriate cases, against an officer or person whose acts are without or in excess of his authority. Enriquez v. Macadaeg When a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue is erroneously denied, mandamus is not the proper remedy for correcting the error, but a writ of prohibition. Asinas v. CFI Romblon The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does NOT lie when a remedy of appeal is adequate to correct the error of the lower court, when it exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the payment of expenses other than administrative expenses.


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 15 MANDAMUS

WRIT OF MANDAMUS: a writ issued in the name of the State to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person commanding the performance of an act, which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. GROUNDS 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. 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. REQUISITES (CP‐MEN) 1. There must be a CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT OR DUTY. 2. The act to be performed must be PRACTICAL—within the powers of respondent to perform such that if the writ of mandamus was issued, he can comply with it, or else the essence will be defeated. 3. Respondent must be exercising a MINISTERIAL DUTY—a duty which is absolute and imperative and involves merely its execution. 4. The duty or act to be performed must be EXISTING—a correlative right will be denied if not performed by the respondents 5. There is NO OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY in the ordinary course of law. Preliminary injunction must be sought. PURPOSE: To compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective. It does not lie to require anyone to fulfill a contractual obligation or to compel a course of conduct, not to control or review the exercise of discretion. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES GR: Mandamus will not issue when administrative remedies are still available. Exception: a. If the party is in estoppel b. Pure questions of law are raised MINISTERIAL DUTY: a duty or act that demands no special judgment, discretion or skill; one that leaves nothing to discretion and is a simple and definite duty imposed by law.

•

•

Mandamus will NOT lie to compel the performance of a discretionary duty, 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. Mandamus will NOT lie as a remedy to enforce the performance of a contractual obligation. It is not intended to aid a plaintiff in the enforcement of a mere contract right, or to take the place of the other remedies provided by law for the adjudication of disputed claims. MANDAMUS vs. INJUNCTION

MANDAMUS INJUNCTION Special civil action Ordinary civil action Directed against a tribunal, Directed against a litigant corporation, board or officer Purpose: To perform a ministerial act Purpose: To refrain from an act or to perform not necessarily a legal and ministerial duty Purpose: To perform a positive legal Purpose: To prevent an act to duty and not to undo what has been maintain the status quo between the done parties MANDAMUS vs. QUO WARRANTO MANDAMUS Proper remedy when the respondent unlawfully excludes the petitioner from an office to which the latter is entitled without usurping, intruding into or unlawfully holding the office

QUO WARRANTO Proper remedy when the respondent claims any right to the office and usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds it against the petitioner.

•

Both mandamus and quo warranto may be combined.



2.

3.

4.

CASE DOCTRINES Angchanco Jr. v. Ombudsman 5. University of San Carlos v. CA Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the Schools are given ample discretion to formulate rules and guidelines in the granting act required to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects the performance if an act of honors for purposes of graduation as part of their academic freedom. which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, OR unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to 6. Peralta v. Salcedo which such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy and adequate relief The writ of mandamus prayed for cannot issue for the reason that the petition is in the ordinary course of law. clearly premature. No recourse to the courts can be had until all administrative remedies have been exhausted and special civil actions have been held not Lamb v. Phipps entertainable if superior administrative officers could grant relief. Whenever a duty is imposed upon a public official and an unnecessary and unreasonable delay in the exercise of such duty occurs, if it is clear duty imposed by 7. Madrigal v. Lecaroz law, the courts will intervene by the extraordinary legal remedy of mandamus to A petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be compel action. If the duty is purely ministerial, the courts will require specific filed within 1 year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his position. In action. If the duty is purely discretionary, the courts by mandamus will require actions for quo warranto involving the right to an office, the action must be action only and not in a specific manner. instituted within the period of 1 year. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company Credit Union v. 8. University of San Agustin Inc. v. CA Manila Railroad Co. Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial Mandamus is the proper remedy if it could be shown that there was neglect on the duty, this being its main objective. It does not require anyone to fulfill contractual part of a tribunal in the performance of an act, which specifically the law enjoins as obligations or to compel a course of conduct, nor to control or review the exercise a duty or an unlawful exclusion of a party from the use and enjoyment of a right to of discretion. It is essential to the issuance of the writ of mandamus that he should which he is entitled. Only specific legal rights may be enforced by mandamus if they have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and must be the imperative duty of are clear and certain. If the legal rights of the petitioner are not well‐defined, clear the respondent to perform the act required. and certain, the petition must be dismissed. Carbungco v. Amparo The law has prescribed a period, and this requirement should be complied with strictly, and its observance and compliance should be enjoined and enforced by the courts, not only for the protection of the parties in whose favor the law happens to have been made and promulgated, but also for the information and guidance of those otherwise affected there. Pending appeal, failure to make the deposit of rental within the period fixed by law, however short the delay, gives petitioner the right to execute the judgment, which the court is bound to grant and enforce.



COMMON MATTERS (RULE 65)

CERTIORARI Directed against an entity or person exercising JUDICIAL OR QUASI‐JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS Entity or person is alleged to have acted: • Without jurisdiction • In excess of jurisdiction • With grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction (GADLEJ) Purpose: To annul or nullify a proceeding

PROHIBITION Directed against an entity or person exercising JUDICIAL, QUASI‐JUDICIAL or MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS Entity or person is alleged to have acted: • Without jurisdiction • In excess of jurisdiction • With grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction Purpose: To have the respondent desist from further proceeding

MANDAMUS Directed against an entity or person exercising MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS Entity or person is alleged to have UNLAWFULLY: • NEGLECTED a ministerial duty • EXCLUDED another from a right or office

Purpose: • To do the act required • To pay damages Corrective remedy: To correct usurpation of jurisdiction Preventive and negative remedy: To restrain, prevent Affirmative and positive remedy: usurpation of jurisdiction • To perform a duty • To desist from excluding another from a right or office Covers DISCRETIONARY ACTS Covers DISCRETIONARY and MINISTERIAL ACTS Covers MINISTERIAL ACTS c. Date when the MR or MNT was denied PROCEDURE COURT WITH JURISDICTION 1. Person aggrieved may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying for a favorable judgment. • REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: if the petition relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person 2. Petition must be accompanied with: a. Certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject of • COURT OF APPEALS: if the petition involves acts or omissions of a quasi‐ the petition judicial agency b. Copies of all relevant pleadings and documents c. Sworn certification of non‐forum shopping • SANDIGANBAYAN: if it is in aid of appellate jurisdiction 3. Petition must be filed within 60 days from the notice of judgment, order or • SUPREME COURT: doctrine of hierarchy of courts will refrain the SC from resolution. taking cognizance of the petition unless a compelling reason exists for not a. In case a MR or MNT is filed and subsequently denied, the 60‐day filing the same with the lower courts. period will be counted from the notice of denial of MR or MNT (fresh period). PARTIES TO THE PETITION b. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted EXCEPT for compelling reasons and in no case exceeding 15 days. • PERSON AGGRIEVED: person who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court 4. Petition must date material dates (Material Date Rule) • Petitioner shall join as private respondent/s with the public respondent/s the a. Date when the judgment or final order or resolution was received person/s interested in sustaining the proceedings in court. b. Date when the MR or MNT was filed


SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS | ATTY. MELO 18 •

If the case is elevated to the 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

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF • It is necessary that a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction be issued by a higher court against the public respondent so that during the pendency of the petition, it will refrain from further proceeding. ORDER TO COMMENT • No summons is issued in a petition for certiorari • Instead of summons, court will issue an order requiring the respondents to comment on the petition within 10 days from receipt of a copy thereof. It shall be made only if the court finds that the petition is sufficient in form and substance. • In petitions for certiorari before the SC and the CA, the respondents may also be required to file a comment to the petition and not a motion to dismiss. Thereafter, the court may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper. PROCEEDINGS AFTER COMMENT; JUDGMENT • After the comment or other pleadings are filed, the court may o Hear the case or o Require the parties to submit a memoranda • The court dismisses the petition if: o Petition is patently without merit o Petition is prosecuted manifestly for delay o Questions raised in the petition are too unsubstantial to require consideration SERVICE OF COPY OF THE JUDGMENT TO PUBLIC RESPONDENT • Certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the public respondent concerned. • Disobedience to the judgment or order shall be punished as contempt.

RELIEF • • •

Primary relief: ANNULMENT OR MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT, ORDER OR RESOLUTION OR PROCEEDING SUBJECT OF THE PETITION Other incidental reliefs as law and justice may require Damages and the execution of the award for damages and costs shall follow procedure in Rule 39 § 1.

NOTES: • Rule 65 does NOT— o Interrupt the course of the principal action o Affect the running of the reglementary periods involved in the proceedings o Stay the execution of the judgment, unless a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction is issued • A writ of certiorari or prohibition cannot be issued by a RTC against an ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY exercising QUASI‐JUDICIAL FUNCTION since the RTC has the same rank as the ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. • A writ of prohibition may be issued by the RTC against ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES exercising ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS. • Generally, a motion for reconsideration is an essential precondition for the filing of a petition under Rule 65. It is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy to give the court the opportunity to correct itself. o EXCEPTION: 1. When the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction 2. When the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court 3. 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 4. Where the subject matter of the action is perishable 5. Where under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless 6. Where the petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief



Where in a criminal case, relief from order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable 8. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process 9. Where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object 10. Where the issue raised is only purely of law or where public interest is involved •

1.

2.

Generally, where the proper remedy is appeal, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. It is not a remedy for errors of judgment, but only for errors of jurisdiction. o EXCEPTIONS: (REPOF‐C) 1. When the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy 2. When orders were issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction

3. 4. 5. 6.

For certain special considerations as public policy or public welfare When the order is a patent nullity When decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigation When, in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution as in case of acquittal, there could be no remedy.

• •

Remedy of appeal and certiorari are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Except: when the appeal is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

CASE DOCTRINES Santiago v. Vasquez 3. Joy Mart Consolidated Group v. CA The original and special civil action filed with the Supreme Court is, for all intents By lifting the writ of injunction before the CA could rule on whether or not it was and purposes, an invocation for the exercise of its supervisory powers over the properly issued, the trial court in effect pre‐empted the CA’s jurisdiction and lower courts. It does not have the effect of divesting the inferior courts of flouted its authority. jurisdiction validly acquired over the case pending before them. It is elementary that the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari, commenced in No petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus or quo warranto relation to a case pending before a lower court, does not even interrupt the course may be filed in the IAC if another similar petition has been filed or is still pending in of the latter when there is no writ of injunction restraining it. For as long as no writ the SC. of injunction or restraining order is issued in the special civil action for certiorari, no impediment exists and there is nothing to prevent the lower court from exercising 4. Go v. Judge Abrogar its jurisdiction and proceeding with the case pending before it. The principle of “judicial courtesy” could not have prevented the judge from authorizing the execution of the judgment and issuing the writ of execution. This Eternal Gardens Memorial Park v. CA principle should not be applied indiscriminately and haphazardly if we are to The rule of judicial courtesy would apply only if there is a strong probability that maintain the relevance of Sec. 7, Rule 65 of the ROC. the issued before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court.


Special Civil Actions Reviewer

Recommend Documents