Estructura y Estados del Simulador

property or any interest therein. The action contemplates a situation where the instrument or a record is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title to real property.

It may also be brought as a preventive remedy to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein (Art. 476).

The plaintiff need not be 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 (Art.

477).

REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTION OF THE COMELEC AND COA

(RULE 64)

A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, unless the SC directs otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just. To prevent the execution of the judgment, the petitioner should obtain a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction because the mere filing of a petition does not interrupt the course of the principal case.

Decisions of the Civil Service Commission shall be appealed to the Court of Appeals which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all judgments or final orders of such commission (RA 7902).

The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall

not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

Note that petition for review from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies to the CA should be within 15 days and does not stay the decision appealed.

Petition for review from decisions of the RTC decided in its appellate jurisdiction filed to the CA should be filed within 15 days and stays execution, unless the case is under the rules of Summary Procedure. Special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, from Comelec and COA should be filed within 30 days, and does not stay the decision appealed.

Bottomline: Decisions of quasi-judicial bodies are not stayed by appeal alone. Decisions of regular courts are stayed on appeal. Although in petition for review on certiorari to the SC via Rule 45, there is no express provision on effect of appeal on execution.

The “not less than 5 days” provision for filing a pleading applies only to:

a) filing an answer after a denial of a MtD;

b) filing an answer after denial or service of a bill of particulars;

c) filing an special civil action for certiorari from a decision of the Comelec or CoA after denial of a MfR or MNT. It does not apply to filing appeal from decisions of other entities after denial of a MfR or MNT. In such cases, either the parties have a fresh 15 days, or the balance.

APPLICATION OF RULE 65 UNDER RULE 64 Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution reads, “unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order or ruling of each commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.” The provision was interpreted by the Supreme Court to refer to certiorari under Rule 65 and not appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. To implement the above constitutional provision, the SC promulgated Rule 64.

DISTINCTION IN THE APPLICATION OF RULE 65 TO JUDGMENTS OF THE COMELEC AND COA AND THE APPLICATION OF RULE 65 TO OTHER TRIBUNALS, PERSONS AND OFFICERS

Rule 64 Rule 65 Directed only to the

judgments, final orders or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA;

Directed to any tribunal, board or officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

Filed within 30 days from

notice of the judgment; Filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment;

The filing of a motion for

reconsideration or a The period within which to file the petition if the

motion for new trial if allowed interrupts the period for the filing of the petition for certiorari. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than 5 days reckoned from the notice of denial.

motion for reconsideration or new trial is denied is 60 days from notice of the denial of the motion.

" 5-day Rule does not apply in filing of notice of appeal

CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS (RULE 65)

Certiorari is a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. It 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. Since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment.

Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of law or fact which is a mistake of judgment, the proper remedy should be appeal. Hence, if there was no question of jurisdiction involved in the decision and what was being questioned was merely the findings in the decision of whether or not the practice of the other party constitutes a violation of the agreement, the matter is a proper subject of appeal, not certiorari.

Filing of 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. Neither does it interrupt the reglementary period for the filing of an answer nor the course of the case where there is no writ of injunction.

In a summary proceeding, petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against an interlocutory order of the court are not allowed.

Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence. The remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits is appeal. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the lower court is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion. The existence and availability of the right to appeal prohibits

the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for certiorari is that there is no appeal.

Exceptions to the rule that certiorari is not available when the period for appeal has lapsed and certiorari may still be invoked when appeal is lost are the following:

1) Appeal was lost without the appellant’s negligence;

2) When public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates;

3) When the broader interest of justice so requires;

4) When the writs issued are null and void; and 5) When the questioned order amounts to an

oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

CERTIORARI PROHIBITION MANDAMUS

Certiorari is an extraordinary writ ANNULLING OR MODIFYING the proceedings of a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions when such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, there being no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Sec. 1, Rule 65).

Prohibition is an extraordinary writ

COMMANDING a tribunal,

corporation, board or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, TO DESIST from further proceedings when said proceedings are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with abuse of its discretion, there being no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Sec. 2, Rule 65).

Mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person, to do an act REQUIRED to be done:

a) When he unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; or

b) When one unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled (Sec. 3, Rule 65).

Directed against a person exercising to

judicial or quasi-judicial functions Directed against a person exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, or ministerial functions

Directed against a person exercising ministerial duties

The tribunal, board or officer has acted without, or in excess of jurisdiction or with abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction

The tribunal, corporation, board or person must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction;

It must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act, which is ministerial and not discretionary, because the same is mandated by law.

There is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

There is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

The defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law;

Object is to correct Object is to prevent Object is to compel

Purpose is to annul or modify the

proceedings Purpose is to stop the proceedings Purpose is to compel performance of the act required and to collect damages Person or entity must have acted

without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion

Person or entity must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion

Person must have neglected a ministerial duty or excluded another from a right or office

A person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, 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

A person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, 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

The person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act

reliefs as law and justice may require.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

PROHIBITION INJUNCTION

Always the main action May be the main action or just a provisional remedy

Directed against a court, a tribunal exercising judicial or

quasi-judicial functions Directed against a party

Ground must be the court acted without or in excess of

jurisdiction Does not involve a question of jurisdiction

PROHIBITION MANDAMUS

To prevent an act by a respondent To compel an act desired May be directed against entities exercising judicial or

quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions May be directed against judicial and non-judicial entities Extends to discretionary functions Extends only to ministerial functions

MANDAMUS QUO WARRANTO

Clarifies legal duties, not legal titles Clarifies who has legal title to the office, or franchise Respondent, without claiming any right to the office,

excludes the petitioner Respondent usurps the office

# Mandamus can be issued to perform an act but not to approve a certain request 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 a writ of preliminary injunction has

been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case.

The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge (AM 07-7-12-SC, Dec. 12, 2007).

CERTIORARI AS A MODE OF APPEAL (RULE 45)

CERTIORARI AS A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION (RULE 65)

Called petition for review on certiorari, is a mode of appeal, which is but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case;

A special civil action that is an original action and not a mode of appeal, and not a part of the appellate process but an independent action.

Seeks to review final judgments or final orders; May be directed against an interlocutory order of the court or where not appeal or plain or speedy remedy available in the ordinary course of law

Raises only questions of law; Raises questions of jurisdiction because a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction;

Filed within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from, or of the denial of petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration or new trial;

Filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed and in case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the 60 day period is counted from notice of denial of said motion;

Extension of 30 days may be granted for justifiable reasons

Extension no longer allowed;

Does not require a prior motion for reconsideration; Motion for Reconsideration is a condition precedent, subject to exceptions

Stays the judgment appealed from; Does not stay the judgment or order subject of the petition unless enjoined or restrained;

Parties are the original parties with the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as the respondent without impleading the lower court or its judge;

The tribunal, board, officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is impleaded as respondent

Filed with only the Supreme Court May be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, or Regional Trial Court

SC may deny the decision motu propio on the ground that the appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

" The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. The antithetic character of appeal and certiorari has been generally recognized and observed save only on those rare instances when

appeal is satisfactorily shown to be an inadequate remedy. Thus, a petitioner must show valid reasons why the issues raised in his petition for certiorari could not have been raised on appeal.

PROHIBITION MANDAMUS INJUNCTION

Prohibition is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, to desist from further proceedings when said proceedings are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with abuse of its discretion, there being no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law

(Sec. 2, Rule 65).

Mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person, to do an act required to be done: (a) When he unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; or (b) When one unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled (Sec. 3, Rule 65).

Main action for injunction seeks to enjoin the defendant from the commission or continuance of a specific act, or to compel a particular act in violation of the rights of the applicant. Preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy to preserve the status quo and prevent future wrongs in order to preserve and protect certain interests or rights during the pendency of an action.

Special civil action Special civil action Ordinary civil action

To prevent an encroachment, excess, usurpation or assumption of jurisdiction;

To compel the performance of a ministerial and legal duty;

For the defendant either to refrain from an act or to perform not necessarily a legal and ministerial duty;

May be directed against entities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions

May be directed against judicial and non-judicial entities

Directed against a party

Extends to discretionary functions Extends only to ministerial functions Does not necessarily extend to ministerial, discretionary or legal

functions;

Always the main action Always the main action May be the main action or just a provisional remedy

May be brought in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, or in the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the territorial area where respondent resides.

May be brought in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, or in the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the territorial area where respondent resides.

May be brought in the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the territorial area where respondent resides.

EXCEPTIONS TO FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE FILING PETITION 1) When the issue is one purely of law;

2) When there is urgency to decide upon the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government or of the petitioner;

3) Where the subject matter of the action is perishable;

4) When order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction or there was no due process;

5) When questions have been duly raised and passed

5) When questions have been duly raised and passed

In document Índice de Figuras ... 8 (página 45-52)