Rule 65

CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION & MANDAMUS

A. CERTIORARI

WHEN to File:

 Not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. If
motion for reconsideration/new trial is filed, reckoning of the reglamentary period is
from notice of the denial of the motion.
 NO extension to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in
no case exceeding fifteen (15) day. (Yoche v Yoche, 2007)
 The period as specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay violative of right of
parties to speedy disposition. Hence, it is inextendible, except for exceptional
circumstances on the ground of justice and equity.

WHERE to file: If petition relates to act of MTC/corporation/board/an officer/person, filed with

appropriate RTC. May also be filed with CA or Sandiganbayan; if involving quasi-judicial
agency, with CA unless otherwise provided by law. In election cases (MTC/RTC), exclusively
with COMELEC in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
 Pertinent pleadings and documents must be attached to the petition (Sec. 1 (2), Rule
65)

FUNCTION: To keep inferior courts within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from
committing such grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
 As a rule, grant of petition for certiorari does NOT interrupt the course of the
principal case, unless coupled with a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction. Public
respondent to proceed within ten (10) days from filing of petition for certiorari, absent
TRO or writ of preliminary injunction

 Court may dismiss petition if it finds the same to be patently without merit or
prosecuted manifestly for delay or questions raised are too unsubstantial. It may
impose motu propio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions/measures
on erring lawyers for patently dilatory/umeritorious petitions for certiorari.

 The remedy against interlocutory resolutions of the Court of Appeals is certiorari

under Rule 65 (as provided in Sec 1 (b) Rule 41)

 The grant of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
 Grave abuse of discretion: were an an act is performed with a capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of juridiction. Abuse must be
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty/ power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reaon of pasion or hostility.

 Question of law should be filed with Supreme Court, NOT Court of Appeals. The
Supreme Court has original jurisdiction xxx over cases in which only question of law
is involved (Hanjin vs CA, 2006)

 Petition for certiorari against quasi-judicial agency cognizable only by the Court of
Appeals (via petition for review on certiorari, under Rule 43).

 Certiorari is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the
course of law. Remedies of appeal under Rule 45 and an original action for certiorari
under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive (Nippon vs CA, 2004). Certiorari is not
substitute to a lost appeal, as proscribed under Rule 45. If there are other existing
remedy, it must NOT be plain, speedy and adequate.

 There are occasions when the Supreme Court treated a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 as one filed under Rule 45 (provided, that it was filed within prescribed time
and attended by special circumstances).

 Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as may be
established by law (Sec 1, Art VIII of the 1987 Constitution), includes determination
of grave abuse of discretion and issuance of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
etc..

 Certiorari will only issue to correct errors of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment not
enough; it must be capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power. Abuse of
discretion must be patent/exercised arbitrarily/despotically.

 Motion for reconsideration a condition precedent before certiorari may be granted,

except:

o when the court pronounced its decision final and executory;

o Motion for reconsideration is no longer necessary/other special

circumstances warrant immediate and direct action (i.e. bail has
been granted/accused free to roam);

o when the court a quo had no jurisdiction;

 o when question raised in certiorari has been duly raised and
passed upon there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudice interest of
government/petitioner/subject matter is perishable;

o MR is useless, under the circumstances;

o Petitioner deprived of due process/extreme urgency of relief is

improbable;

o Proceedings ex parte;

o Petitioner has no opportunity to object; and

o Purely question of law

 A question of law does not call for examination of the

probative vale of evidence presented, the truth of
falsehood of facts being admitted/doubt concerns the
correct application of law and jurisprudence o the
matter. When there is a dispute as to fact, the question
of whether or not the conclusion draw there from is
correct, is a question of law.

o Public interest is involved (e.g. employer-employee relationship

impressed with public interest);

o Error is patent nullity; and

o Judicial intervention is urgent/great and irreparable damage

 No grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to a court simply because of its

alleged wrongful appreciation of fact and evidence. Certiorari will NOT issue for
 errors of procedure or mistake in the findings or conclusion of the lower court.
Review of evidence cannot be secured in a petition for CPM.

 Interlocutory orders, if found to be with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack

or excess of jurisdiction, may be remedied with special civil action of certiorari under
Rule 65.

 The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not n iron-clad dictum and it may be relaxed
when exceptional and compelling circumstance so warrant the exercise of the
[Supreme Court's] primary jurisdiction. Technical rules on substitution of parties
should not be narrowly construed as to prevent the court from deciding the case on its
merit.

B. PROHIBITION

REQUISITES:

 tribunal/corporation/board/an officer/person unlawfully neglects the performance of

an act which the law specfically enjoins as duty/ unlawfully excludes another from
the use or enjoyment of a right or office

 No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy

 verified petition in the proper courts alleging facts with certainty/praying judgments
be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the
action or matter specified therein/incidental relief

GROUNDS FOR PETITION:

 without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction

 with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

 no appeal/ any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law

* Certified true copy of the judgment must accompany the petition as well as copies of pertinent
pleadings and documents, and sworn certificate of non-forum shopping (Sec 3 Rule 46)
C. MANDAMUS

 A mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act

o EXCEPTION: Instances of (1) gross abuse of discretion , manifest injustice

or palpable excess of authority, equivalent to denial of settled right and (2) no
other plain, speedy, adequate remedy

 Commission with ministerial duty subject to mandamus

o A purely ministerial 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 legal
authority WITHOUT regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon
propriety or impropriety of the act done.

o Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a corporation to grant monthly

salary and holiday pay

o Mandamus is NOT the proper to compel a school to enroll a student for

academic deficiencies because this involves the exercise by the school of
discretion under academic freedom 1 The grant of petition for certiorari does
not stop the assailed principal proceedings, unless with TRO or writ of
preliminary injunction.

o Mandamus will not lie against the President or Congress due to principle that
the judiciary is a co-equal branch.

o Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is generally fatal to an action for

mandamus

 If petition is sufficient in form and substance, court will order respondent to

comment within ten (10) days from receipt of copy. Respondent may not file a
motion to dismiss but the court may require filing of reply and other responsive
pleading

 Court may issue injunctive relief (TRO or writ of preliminary injunction) with the
grant of the petition.

Effect of the pendency of a special civil action on the principal case

● What is the effect of the pendency of a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court on the principal case before the lower court? (Bar 2013)
(A) It always interrupts the course of the principal case.
(B) It interrupts the course of the principal case only if the higher court issues a
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction against the lower court.
(C) The lower court judge is given the discretion to continue with the principal case.
(D) The lower court judge will continue with the principal case if he believes that the
special civil action was meant to delay proceedings.
(E) Due respect to the higher court demands that the lower court judge temporarily
suspend the principal case.
Answer: B
● Diaz vs. Diaz, G.R. No. 135885. April 28, 2000
Facts:
A filed a case for sum of money against B. B filed a motion to dismiss but was denied.
He sought reconsideration. On January 22, 1998, he received the court's Order
denying his motion for reconsideration. At that time, B had only five (5) days from
receipt of the Order, or until January 27, 1998, within which to file an answer. He,
however, did not file an answer but instead file a petition for certiorari before the CA
on February 6, 1998. Thus, on February 16, 1998, A filed a motion to declare B in
default. The court granted the motion.
In his petition for review to the SC, A argued that he could expected to file an answer
because he intended to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. He
further submitted that the notice of denial provided in Section 4 of Rule 16 referred to
a decision or resolution of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, denying a
petition for certiorari with finality. Until resolved, he contended that the period
provided for in said section does not apply to him. Is A correct?
Held:
When A filed his Petition for Certiorari with the CA on February 6, 1998, he was
already in default. Hence, the filing of said Petition for Certiorari cannot be considered
as having interrupted the reglementary period for filing an answer. More importantly,
Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules provides that:
SEC. 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. The court in which the petition is
filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and 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. The petition shall not interrupt the course of
the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in
the case.
In Santiago v. Vasquez, we explained that:
The original and special civil action filed with this Court is, for all intents and purposes,
an invocation for the exercise of its supervisory powers over lower courts. It does not
have the effect of divesting the inferior courts of 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 relation to a case pending before a lower court,
does not even interrupt the course of the latter when there is no writ of injunction
restraining it. The inevitable conclusion is that for so long as no writ 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 its jurisdiction and
proceeding with the case pending before it. And even if such injunctive writ or order
is issued, the lower court nevertheless continues to retain its jurisdiction
● Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166859, June 26, 2006
Section 7 of Rule 65 provides the general rule that the mere pendency of a special civil
action for Certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court or
court of origin does not stay the proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.