ICUMPLIMIETO A LAS OBLIGACIOES PACTADAS E EL AEXO “SSPA”

Rule 65 Certiorari Prohibition Mandamus

Petitioner (Plaintiff)

Any aggrieved party

Same same

Respondent T – B – O Tribunal, Board, Officer, Person, Corporation T – B – O – P – C Grounds 1. Lack of jurisdiction 2. Excess of jurisdiction 3. Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction

Same 1. Neglect in the performance of the act enjoined by the law 2. Unlawfully excludes the enjoyment of an office or franchise Functions of

respondents Judicial/quasi judicial functions (discretionary)

Same + ministerial

functions Same as prohibition Conditions 1. No appeal 2. No plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Same Judgment To annul/void judgment or final order To cease and desist Order to do but may award damages

Let us now discuss these:

Q: We do not have any problem in the aggrieved parties. How about the respondents?

A: In prohibition you add the person and the corporation and remember that this used to be under the jurisdiction of the SEC, but this is no longer true. How about this person? This is not ordinary individual person but a person exercising quasi

judicial function. Remember that quasi judicial bodies as we have studied does not belong to the judiciary and a lot of them falls under the executive branch of the government and that includes the NLRC. The NLRC is not a judicial body but it exercises quasi judicial functions.

UP Board of Regents vs Tailan

Board was considered as a body exercising discretionary function, in effect quasi judicial. Even in an administrative bodies, a school board, when it rules that a student is not entitled to be enrolled in said school due to some grounds.

Lapid vs Laurea

Requirement of certiorari

Q: Give example of lack of jurisdiction?

A: Tribunal, body, board or officer has no authority to decide the case. Example MTC rendered a judgment on an issue which the subject is not capable of pecuniary estimation.

Russel vs Vestil

Note: Under Rule 45 which is a mode of appeal, the body there acted with jurisdiction that is why the ground cannot be any of the 3 because it is a mode of appeal. It is called errors in judgment. Under Rule 65 it is errors of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment are correctible by an appeal, while error of jurisdiction is correctible by certiorari.

Q: Give example of excess of jurisdiction?

A: Here the court has jurisdiction but it exceeded its authority. Example is when MTC in a case of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide rendered a judgment of conviction of 20 yrs imprisonment. This is clearly excess of jurisdiction.

Before amendment in summary procedure, attorneys fees are limited to 20k wala na yan ngayon. So if a court grants more than 20k as attorneys fees under the old law it is clearly excess of jurisdiction. Under the new law it may be grave abuse of discretion but not anymore excess of jurisdiction.

Court penalizes lawyer in the amount of 20k for direct contempt for coming late. Maximum penalty is 20k so no excess of jurisdiction but maybe grave abuse of discretion.

Q: What is grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction?

A: It is a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment and despotic or arbitrary exercise thereof.

Certiorari is always questioned in the bar or at least it is always mentioned. So if you are asked a question about certiorari and you do not know whether it is

excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction, just remember 4 adjectives – whimsical, capricious, despotic and arbitrary. When you see any of these words, it is grave abuse of discretion because in all jurisprudence involving certiorari, these are the words often used by the SC. But there may be a case wherein it does not use the specific words, kaya dapat alam nyo ang meaning and synonyms of these terms.

Q: When is it capricious? How about whimsical? Despotic? Arbitrary? A:

Note: That the word capricious and whimsical always go together. You will not find one without the other. It means it is only based on whim, there is no need, no necessity. It is unreasonable.

Arbitrary naman is no basis, unwarranted, baseless, the law does not provide. Despotic on the other hand is when it is done out of passion, out of revenge, out of hatred or out of love. Remember despotic pa rin yan kahit out of love. Relationships, maraming jurisprudence dyan, kaya lawyers always file motion for inhibition.

Q: Give example of grave abuse of discretion?

A: In filing a motion to quash grounded on double jeopardy and in your motion you attached the judgment of conviction of your client. Very clear he has been convicted already. Court denied motion stating yes you have been convicted of rape of my daughter but it is still denied. Why? Because I have 2 more daughters….LOL.

Note: In all of these grounds – lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion. Ang malimit mong mabasa is grave abuse of discretion kasi very clear pag excess of jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction.

It is important that you must establish the existence of whimsical, capricious, despotic or arbitrary. If you cannot establish that then the court should deny it because it would then be an error of judgment and not error of jurisdiction. The remedy would be wrong. And at the time of said judgment the case would be final and executory because the right to appeal is lost because the period for filing an appeal has already lapse.

Note: That certiorari does not stop the running of the period of appeal.

Note: Discuss mandamus with quo warranto because of the similarities between the 2.

Q: Let us now go to functions of the respondent. In Certiorari the functions are judicial and quasi judicial function. Now, what is judicial function?

Q: The distinction lies in the root of its power since both exercises the same power which is the power to hear and determine a case, so what is the root of its authority?

A: In judicial function the root of its power comes from the judiciary itself while in quasi judicial function the roots of its power comes from the legislative or the executive department.

Note: Do not confuse it to discretionary or ministerial functions

Q: How do you distinguish one from the other?

A: In ministerial, the court is left without the choice but to grant it if all the rules and requirements are complied with, while in discretionary it may deny or grant but within the parameters, it cannot go beyond said parameters. Example is giving penalty of 6 years 1 day to 12 years. The court has discretion what specific penalty to give but it must be within said period depending upon certain circumstance.

Note: That the grounds in prohibition is the same even if the function is merely ministerial kasi pwede pa rin na whimsical, capricious, despotic or arbitrary. But which is clearer? Yung discretionary function sa certiorari because it is very clear because of the parameter in discretionary. So if it exceeds the parameter clearly grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction (????).

Conditions are that there must be no appeal and there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Q: Why no appeal? A:

Generally, certiorari cannot be a substitute for an appeal. Remember this, madaming ramifications to. If appealable, no certiorari, as a general rule, so why go to certiorari? Because it is not appealable. Example of those which are not appealable are interlocutory orders. Decisions in labor cases, does not allow appeal so your remedy is certiorari. Why no appeal again? Because you could have appealed but you did not, you have now lost your right to appeal. But these time the loss of appeal here is not due to any others fault but your own. If it is your own fault, you cannot apply for certiorari. You loss your right to appeal not because of your own fault. Example lawyers fault, although the general rule is fault of lawyer is also fault of client, but there are exceptions there like Rule 38 Sec 1 Relief from judgment; Sec. 2 Rule 38 Relief from denial of appeal. You left for abroad while pending case, lawyer received decision but he did not notify you. When you return it can be excused.

The other condition, no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the course of law, in other words you could have filed a motion for reconsideration or you could have appealed because it is still available, but appeal or MR are not speedy or

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Example motion to quash was denied, may appeal dun, pero certiorari is the better rule, why? Because if you saw appeal, tuloy tuloy pa rin ang kaso. You cannot desist from proceeding the case, are you going to subject, are you going to endanger the client to be convicted later on? So instead of an appeal or MR then you go to certiorari where the other court will immediately strike down the resolution.

Q: What is the character of Rule 65 as distinguished from rule 45? A: Rule 65 is a special civil action while rule 45 is a mode of appeal.

The ground for filing an appeal under Rule 45 is error of judgment which can either be:

1. Insufficiency of evidence

2. Judgment is not according to the facts 3. Damages awarded is contrary to law

The ground for filing certiorari under Rule 65 is error of jurisdiction which can either be:

1. Lack of jurisdiction 2. Excess of jurisdiction

3. Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Q: What are the grounds for filing of an action for prohibition?

A: Same grounds with certiorari.

Q: What are the grounds for filing an action for mandamus? A:

1. Neglect in the performance of duty imposed by law 2. Exclusion from enjoyment of an office

Q: Doctrine in the case of Lapid V. Laurea A:

1. Requirement preparatory to the filing of petition for certiorari

General Rule: Filing of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory to give the tribunal a chance to correct itself

Exception: Purely questions of law which raises questions of error of jurisdiction

2. Specific dates must be stated as to when the judgment was rendered, when notice of judgment was received, filing of Motion for reconsideration and receipt of order with respect to the denial or grant of the motion.

Q: What is the period for filing of certiorari?

A: Period of 60 days from receipt of copy of judgment. Q: Does the Neypes doctrine or fresh day rule apply?

A: The jurisprudence does not specifically provide that it should likewise apply to Rule 65 because it speaks only of appeal. However according to a noted professor, the fresh day rule applies both to Rules 45 and 65 unless a new jurisprudence would otherwise provide.

NOTE: There was an old SC circular which provides that the 60 day period includes the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration. However, in 2005 there was a new circular which states that the old circular does not apply to Rule 65 so the 60 day period is counted from the notice of receipt of denial of the motion for reconsideration.

Q: Doctrine of UP Board of Regeants Case

A: In mandamus rights must be very, very clear so that if the right is doubtful, mandamus will not lie.

Q: Distinguish mandamus from quo warranto. For example: Mayor Atienza has a city attorney which is Atty. X whom he replaced with Atty. Y with no valid reason. Against whom may Atty. X file mandamus and against whom may he file quo warranto?

A: Atty. X can file mandamus against Mayor Atienza because by the latter's act he was excluded from the enjoyment of his office. Atty. X can file quo warranto against Atty. Y because he is a usurper of Atty. X's office.