Consolidation of ownership C. Quieting of title to real property

6. Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolution of the COMELEC and COA

a. Application of Rule 65 under Rule 64

It is by special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 to be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court within 30 days (not 60 days) from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. (Rule 64, Secs 1 and 2)

The period is interrupted by motion for reconsideration filed, if allowed under the rules of the Commission concerned;

If the motion for reconsiderationis denied, the aggrieved party has the remaining period to file the petition, but not less than 5 days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

Only judgment or final order or resolution of the COMELEC en banc may be brought to the Supreme Court on petition for certiorari under Rule 65. (Ambil, Jr. v. COMELEC, etc., et al., G.R. No.143398, October 25, 2000)

ORDER TO COMMENT (Sec 6)

Within 10 days from notice, if the petition is sufficient in form and substance EFFECT OF FILING OF PETITION (Sec 8)

Shall not stay execution of the judgment, etc., unless ordered by the Supreme Court SUBMISSION FOR DECISION

Upon the filing of the comment on the petition, unless set for oral arguments, or the parties are required to submit memoranda, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision.

b. 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

7. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Section 1 to 9)

A. CERTIORARI

1. CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVISIONS AND JUDICIAL POWER a) Article VIII, Sec. 1 par. 2, 1987 Constitution

“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice x x to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction on the part of another branch or instrumentality of the government.”

b) Id., Sec. 5

“(1) The Supreme court shall exercise original jurisdiction over x x x petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and hebeas corpus”

(a) The “certiorari” refers to certiorari as a special civil action under Rule 65.

“(2) Review, revise, modify, or affirm an appeal or certiorari, x x final judgments and order of lower court x x.”

(a) The “certiorari” refers to certiorari as a special civil action under Rule 45.

2. DISTINCTION BETWEEN CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 AS A MODE AND CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 AS A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION:

Rule 45 Rule 65

1) As a forum:

SC only;

2) As a period of filing:

15 days from notice of judgment;

3) As a parties:

Same as in lower courts: Petitioner (Appellant) Respondent (Appellee);

4) As to basis:

Error of law;

5) As to whom summons or order is served:

No summons required. Appeal is just a continuation of the original action. But there is order to comment;

6) As to issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction:

RTC, CA, SB, SC;

60 days from notice of judgment, etc., except certiorari against the COMELEC and COA which is 30 days;

Petitioner—aggrieve party

Respondent—lower court/judge and the party interested to sustain the judgment or order sought to be set aside;

Error of jurisdiction (Lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction);

Also no summons required; but there is order to comment with copy of petition;

Maybe issue to preserve right of parties during

No ordinarily required the appeal stays the execution;

7) As to action that may be taken on the judgment:

Correct error of laws; affirm, modify, reverse, revise, amend, the judgment

appealed from;

8) As to motion of reconsideration:

Not a requisite for filing the petition.

pendency of proceedings;

Annual or modify the act and all proceedings flowing from it;

Ordinarily a requisite for filing the petition.

3. CERTIORARI (as a Special Civil Action)

It is special civil action:

(a) Direct against any – (1) Tribunal (2) Board, or (3) Officer

EXERCISING JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

(b) Which is alleged in a VERIFIED PETITION

(c) To have acted,

(1) Without jurisdiction, or (2) in excess of jurisdiction, or

(3) with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

(d) And there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,

(e) For the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceedings and granting such incidental reliefs as the law and justice may require (Sec. 1).

(i) A tribunal board or officer is said to possess judicial functions when it has the power and authority to pronounce judgment on the controversy, construing and applying the laws to the end. (Ruperto v.

Torres, Feb. 25 1957).

4. GROUNDS FOR THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI

The tribunal, board or officer (exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions) has acted:

(a) Without jurisdiction, or (b) in excess of jurisdiction, or

(c) with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

(a) A tribunal board or officer is said to have acted without jurisdiction when it has no jurisdiction from the beginning. In other words there is an absolute want of jurisdiction. (Alafiz v. Nable, 72 Phil 278)

Example: An inferior court takes cognizance of an action for legal separation

(b) A tribunal board or officer is said to have acted in excess of jurisdiction if it has transcended or acted beyond the limits of its authority, or acted without any statutory authority. (Alafriz v. Nable, supra)

Example: Decision ordered amount paid without interest. Order of execution include payment of interest.(Villamayor v. Luciano, 88 SCRA 156).

Action for support with RTC with granted support pendete like ex parte even if defendant disputed the status of the plaintiff. RTC exceeded its jurisdiction.

(c) A tribunal, board or officer is said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion when it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. (Solidum v. Hernandez, 7 SCRA 320).

Example: The act of the court in declaring a defendant in default for his failure t appear at the pre-trial improperly set, as the same was set even before the last pleading has been filed. The court acted with grave

abuse of discretion. (Pioneer ins. v. Hontanosas, 78 SCRA 447; Peggy v. Tapucar 88 SCRA 785; Dimayacyac v. CA, 93 SCRA 265).

5. JURISPRUDENCE

a) Failure to state in the petition for certiorari that the court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of jurisdiction is fatal to the petition. These are jurisdictional matters which must be alleged. (D’Marks v. Buendia, et al., CA-GR 45793-R, July 31 1970).

(i) But these allegations need to be expressly and directly made in the petition. So long as they can be deduced from averred facts from which these conclusions can be drawn, the petition is sufficient. (Samson v.

Yatco, 1 SCRA 1145).

(aa) But where there is no allegation, nor facts upon which it could be deduced that the court acted without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, the petition for certiorari suffers from a fatal defect because that requirement is jurisdictional. (D’Marks v. Buendia, supra).

b) As a general rule, where a decision could have been appealed due time but no appeal was made, the special civil action of certiorari would not lie. (Santos v. Cerdenola, 5 SCRA 823).

c) Certiorari may not be availed of as a substitute for appeal, especially where the decision could have been appealed in due time and no appeal was made, certiorari would not lie. (Santos vs. Cerdenola, supra).

But in the following cases, certiorari can be availed of as a substitute for appeal or notwithstanding availability of appeal:

(i) Where the failure to appeal within the prescribed period was due to accident and excusable negligence on the part of the apellant’s counsel. (Pendon v. Cabatuando, 25 SCRA 184).

(ii) Certiorari will lie even after the time to appeal has elapsed – as where the court acted without jurisdiction (making the decision void) or where the court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. (City of Manila v.

Macadaeg, 3 SCRA 484).

(iii) Certiorari is proper even where appeal is available when appeal is a mere technicality and which may accomplish nothing substantial (Rubio v. Mariano, 52 SCRA 338), or where appeal is inadequate or ineffectual. (Romero v. CA, 40 SCRA 172).

d) When a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, and a motion to quash was denied, the court acted with jurisdiction in denying such motion to quash. Appeal in due time from the judgment is the remedy, not certiorari, since the court acted with jurisdiction. Wait for the decision, and if it is against the accused, appeal from that decision and assign as error the action of the court in denying the motion to quash.

(Ramos v. Pamaran, 60 SCRA 327).

(i) But even if the court has jurisdiction, if in denying the motion to quash, it acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, certiorari will lie.

6. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ERROR OF JURISDICTION AND ERROR OF JUDGMENT

When a court has no jurisdiction on a subject matter, and proceeded and rendered a decision, it committed an error of jurisdiction; the decision is null and void even if it is correct. The remedy is certiorari, not appeal.

But when a court has jurisdiction on a subject matter, and proceeded and rendered a decision, but the decision is not correct, it committed an error of judgment; the decision is valid even if it is wrong. The remedy is appeal, not certiorari.

(a) Error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction which it has; it is reviewable by appeal;

(b) Error of jurisdiction renders an order or judgment void; it is correctible by certiorari.

(i) Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or soundness of the trial court’s decision, and not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision, or its validity, the same is beyond certiorari. (Phil. Surety v. Jacala, L-2766, May 25, 1960). When the court has jurisdiction and the order or decision was made with jurisdiction, however irregular or erroneous they may be, the order or decision cannot be corrected by certiorari. Remedy is appeal. (Cochingyan v. Cloribel, 76 SCRA 361).

7. WHAT IS MEANT BY A PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY (OTHER THAN APPEAL)?

It is a remedy equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient; a remedy which will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of the inferior court or tribunal.

An example of such remedy is a motion for reconsideration. (Mayol v. Blanco, 61 Phil. 547). By a motion for reconsideration, the court which rendered the questioned order or decision is given the opportunity to re-examine the legal aspect of the case; the court might yet reconsider the same by modifying or altering or even setting aside the questioned order or decision.

8. CONDITION TO BE MET BEFORE CERTIORARI WILL BE INVOKED AS A REMEDY:

File the motion for reconsideration first, to afford the judge the opportunity to correct his error, which is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

(a) But certiorari may be initiated without necessity of first filing a motion for reconsideration as held in Cochingyan v. Cloribel, 76 SCRA 361:

(i) Where the question of jurisdiction has been squarely raised, argued before, submitted to, and met and decided by the court. (also in Klaveness, etc. v. Palmos, 51 SCAD 311, 232 SCRA 448, 452);

(ii) Where the questioned order is a patent nullity;

(iii) Where there is clear deprivation of petitioner’s fundamental rights to due process.

9. THE PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY MAY FILE, IN HIS OWN NAME, AND ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUND, A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION QUESTIONING THE DECISION OR ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN DISMISSING A CRIMINAL CASE. (Dela Rosa v. CA, 68 SCAD 271, 253 SCRA 499, citing People v. Santiago, 175 SCRA 143, 152-153).

B. PROHIBITION

1. PROHIBITION DEFINED Prohibition is a special civil action;

(a) directed against any ---

(1) tribunal (2) Corporation (3) Board (4) Officer, or (5) Person

WHETHER EXERCISING JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL OR MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS (b) which is alleged in a verified petition ---

(c) to be acting or about to act --- (1) without jurisdiction, or (2) in excess of jurisdiction, or

(3) with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and

(d) there being no appeal or any other plain, speed adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;

(e) praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondents to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein. (Sec. 2).

2. THE REQUIREMENTS AND MEANING OF ACTING:

a) without jurisdiction, b) in excess of jurisdiction, c) with grave abuse of discretion,

which are explained above under Certiorari, supra, have the same application and meaning in prohibition.

Allegations of acting without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion which are jurisdictional matters too be alleged (or deduced) as to be applied to certiorari, also apply to prohibition.

The provision relating to existence of appeal , or any other plain speedy and adequate remedy to bar certiorari, as well as when these will not bar certiorari even if present, also applies to prohibition.

3. DISHTINGUISH CERTIORARI FROM PROHIBITION

Certiorari Prohibition

a) Purpose:

To annual proceedings;

b) Status of Acts:

Act already consummated;

c) Nature:

Corrective---it operates on acts already consummated

To prohibit or stop proceedings;

Acts about to be done;

Preventive---its function is to restrain the doing of acts about to be done.

4. DISTINGUISH JURISDICTION FROM INJUNCTION

a) Prohibition is directed from the court, Injunction is directed to the parties litigants.

b) Injunction recognizes the jurisdiction of the court where the case is pending; Prohibition strikes at the very jurisdiction of the court.

C. MANDAMUS

1. MANDAMUS DEFINED

Mandamus is a very special civil action

(a) directed against any --- (1) Tribunal

(2) Corporation (3) Board (4) Officer or (5) Person

(b) which is alleged in verified petition (c) to have unlawfully ---

(1) Neglected the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins (ministerial) as a duty resulting from:

(i) an office, (ii) trust, (iii) or station,

(2) Or excluded another from the use and enjoyment of a right or officeto which such other is entitled.

(d) there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law

(e) for the purpose of having the court command the respondent (immediately or at some other specified time) ---

(1) to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner,

(2) and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by the reason of wrongful acts of the respondent (Sec. 3).

2. TWO (2) ASPECTS (GROUND) OF MANDAMUS

a) “x x x Unlawfully neglects the performance” of a ministerial act

(i) Mandamus is available only to compel the performance of the ministerial duty (Prov. Of Pangasinan v.

Reparations Commission, 80 SCRA 376).

(aa) “Ministerial” if no discretion is left to the office on whom the duty is imposed.

(ii) But, if the discretionary duties were tainted with clear and grave abuse of discretion , mandamus will lie (Talavera-Luna v. Nable, 67 Phil 340)

b) “x x unlawfully includes another from the use of enjoyment of a right or office to whom such other was entiitled”.

(i) In an action to compel reinstatement, when will the action be mandamus, and when will it be quo

1. SIMILARITIES IN CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

1. All need verification;

2. All require that there be no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;

3. In all of them, the court may grant preliminary injunction to preserve the right of the parties during the pendency of said actions (Sec. 7, Rule 65).

2. DISTINGUISH THE THREE

2. Entity or person is alleged to have acted:

Entity or person is alleged to have unlawfully:

In document Remedial Law (Page 111-121)