WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

SEC. 1. Petition for continuing mandamus. –When any agency or instrumentality of the government or
officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an
environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or
enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental
law, rule or regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act
or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by
reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases 141 respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also contain
a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

SEC. 2. Where to file the petition. – The petition shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred or with the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court.

SEC. 3. No docket fees. – The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket fees.

Sec. 4. Order to comment. – If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall issue the
writ and require the respondent to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy
thereof. Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may direct, together
with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.

Sec. 5. Expediting proceedings; TEPO. – The court in which the petition is filed may issue such orders to
expedite the proceedings, and it may also grant a TEPO for the preservation of the rights of the parties
pending such proceedings.

Sec. 6. Proceedings after comment is filed. – After the comment is filed or the time for the filing thereof
has expired, the court may hear the case which shall be summary in nature or require the parties to submit
memoranda. The petition shall be resolved without delay within sixty (60) days from the date of the
submission of the petition for resolution.

SEC. 7. Judgment. – If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus
requiring respondent to perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied and to grant
such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. The
court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution of the
judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate government agency,
evaluate and monitor compliance. The petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the
execution of the judgment. 142 A.M. No. 09-

Sec. 8. Return of the writ. – The periodic reports submitted by the respondent detailing compliance with
the judgment shall be contained in partial returns of the writ. Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a
final return of the writ shall be made to the court by the respondent. If the court finds that the judgment
has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. Writ of
Continuing Mandamus. This rule integrates the ruling in Concerned Residents of Manila Bay v. MMDA and
the existing rule on the issuance of the writ of mandamus.32 Procedurally, its filing before the courts is
similar to the filing of an ordinary writ of mandamus. However, the issuance of a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order is made available as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ
itself. As a special civil action, the Writ of Continuing Mandamus may be availed of to compel the
performance of an act specifically enjoined by law. It permits the court to retain jurisdiction after
judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court’s
decision. For this purpose, the court may compel the submission of compliance reports from the
respondent government agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor compliance with its decision.
Its availability as a special civil action likewise complements its role as a final relief in environmental civil
cases and in the Writ of Kalikasan, where continuing mandamus may likewise be issued should the facts
merit such a relief. The section on TEPO is similar to Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Writ of Continuing Mandamus versus Writ of Kalikasan.

Some main differences between the Writ of Continuing Mandamus and the Writ of Kalikasan are:

(1) Subject matter. A Writ of Continuing Mandamus is directed against (a) the unlawful neglect in the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station
in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right
therein; or (b) the unlawfully exclusion of another from the use or enjoyment of such right and in both
instances, there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A Writ of
Kalikasan is available against an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.33 In addition, magnitude of environmental
damage is a condition sine qua non in a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and must be
contained in the verified petition.34

(2) Who may file. A Writ of Continuing Mandamus is available only to one who is personally aggrieved by
the unlawful act or omission. On the other hand, a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan is
available to a broad range of persons such as natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s
organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered
with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated or threatened to be violated.

(3) Respondent. The respondent in a petition for continuing mandamus is only the government or its
officers, unlike in a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, where the respondent may be a private individual or
entity.

(4) Exemption from docket fees. The application for either petition is exempted from the payment of
docket fees.

(5) Venue. A petition for the issuance of a Writ of Continuing Mandamus may be filed in the following: (a)
the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission
occurred; (b) the Court of Appeals; or (c) the Supreme Court. Given the magnitude of the damage, the
application for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan can only be filed the in Supreme Court or any of the
stations of the Court of Appeals.35
(6) Discovery measures. The Rule on the Writ of Continuing Mandamus does not contain any provision
for discovery measures, unlike the Rule on the Writ of Kalikasan which incorporates the procedural
environmental right of access to information through the use of discovery measures such as ocular
inspection order and production order.

(7) Damages for personal injury. The Writ of Continuing Mandamus allows damages for the malicious
neglect of the performance of the legal duty of the respondent, identical to Rule 65, Rules of Court. In
contrast, no damages may be awarded in a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan consistent with
the public-interest character of the petition. A party who avails of this petition but who also wishes to be
indemnified for injuries suffered may file another suit for the recovery of damages since the Rule on the
Writ of Kalikasan allows for the institution of separate actions.