PROHIBITION MANDAMUS

1. BONCODIN vs. NECU 1. PAGODA PHILIPPINES INC. vs. UNIVERSAL CANNING INC.

- A petition for prohibition is a preventive remedy and as a rule, does not lie to - Ordinarily, mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act, the writ
restrain an act that is already fait accompli (an accomplished fact). shall issue in instances of gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or palpable
- The principle of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an inflexible excess of authority, equivalent to denial of a settled right to which petitioner is
rule. It may be dispensed with in the present case, because its application entitled; and when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. This
would not constitute a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. The issues here are Court has recognized that a judges decision to refuse to act on account of some
purely legal and judicial intervention has been shown to be urgent. disqualification is not conclusive, and his competency may be determined on an
application for mandamus to compel him to act.
2. ERMITA vs. ALDECOA-DELORINO
2. CASTRO vs. GLORIA
- Prohibition lies against judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, but not
against legislative or quasi-legislative functions. - The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the
- The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court within the limits of appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling
its jurisdiction to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels. under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice
When the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, petitioners remedy is for review. It is settled that non-observance of the doctrine results in lack of a
an ordinary action for nullification. cause of action, which is one of the grounds allowed by the Rules of Court for the
dismissal of the complaint.
ON CERTIORARI
The doctrine is not absolute. There are instances when it may be dispensed with
Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately. Among these
reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an exceptions are: 1) When the question raised is purely legal; 2) when the
opportunity to correct its assigned errors.7 This rule, however, is not without administrative body is in estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently
exceptions. illegal; 4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; 5) when the claim
involved is small; 6) when irreparable damage will be suffered; 7) when there is
The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (a) where no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8) when strong public interest is
the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo had no jurisdiction; (b) where involved; and 10) in quo warranto proceedings.
the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed
upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the - Truly, a petition for mandamus is premature if there are administrative remedies
lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question available to petitioner. But where the case involves only legal questions, the
and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the litigant need not exhaust all administrative remedies before such judicial relief
petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the can be sought. In Cortes v. Bartolome, a case involving a petition for mandamus,
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner we ruled that while it may be that non-judicial remedies could have been
was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a available to respondent in that he could have appealed to the then Secretary of
criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief Local Government and Community Development and thereafter to the Civil
by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a Service Commission, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies need
nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte, or in which not be adhered to when the question is purely legal. This is because issues of law
the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer. Appeal to the
purely of law or where public interest is involved.8 (emphasis supplied) administrative officer would only be an exercise in futility.

The present case involves the constitutionality and implementation of an executive - Certiorari is the remedy to correct errors of judgement which are grave and
issuance involving tariff rates and, as alleged by petitioner, the Governments arbitrary and not mandamus.
commitments under the AFTA. Clearly, the filing of a motion for reconsideration may
be dispensed with following exceptions (c ) and (i) in the above enumeration in Siok 3. AED vs. DOTC
Ping Tang.
- It is well-established in our jurisprudence that only specific legal rights are
enforceable by mandamus, that the right sought to be enforced must be certain
and clear, and that the writ will not issue in cases where the right is doubtful. Just
as fundamental is the principle governing the issuance of mandamus that the
 duties to be performed must be such as are clearly and peremptorily enjoined by - In the present case, there is no question that the Resolution of the Court of
law or by reason of official station. Appeals dismissing petitioner petition is already a disposition on the merits.
Therefore, said Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals, are in the nature of a
- A rule long familiar is that mandamus never issues in doubtful cases. It requires final disposition by the appellate court, and which, under Rule 45 of the Revised
a showing of a complete and clear legal right in the petitioner to the performance Rules of Court, are appealable to this Court via a Petition for Review on
of ministerial acts. In varying language, the principle echoed and reechoed is that Certiorari.
legal rights may be enforced by mandamus only if those rights are well-defined,
clear and certain. Otherwise, the mandamus petition must be dismissed. - From the words of Rule 45, it is crystal that decisions (judgments), final orders
or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of
- Although Rule 65 does not specify any period for the filing of a petition for the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a
certiorari and mandamus, it must, nevertheless, be filed within a reasonable petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process
time. As the revised Rules now stand, a petition for certiorari may be filed within over the original case.
60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed.
Reasonable time for filing a petition for mandamus should likewise be for the In the case at bar, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals were final
same period. The filing by the AEDC of its petition for mandamus 20 months after orders. They were not interlocutory because the proceedings were terminated;
its supposed right to the project arose is evidently beyond reasonable time and and left nothing more to be done by the appellate court. There were no remaining
negates any claim that the said petition for the extraordinary writ was the most issues to be resolved. Consequently, the proper remedy available to petitioner
expeditious and speedy remedy available to AEDC. Alfredo then was to file before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the assailed Resolutions of the
CERTIORARI Court of Appeals, and not a special civil action for certiorari.

1. TAGLE vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK From the foregoing discussion, it is fairly obvious that the third requisite for a
petition for certiorari is wanting, that is, there must be no appeal or any plain,
- A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The availability to
or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of petitioner Alfredo of the remedy of a petition for review on certiorari from the
jurisdiction. Such cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals effectively barred his right to resort
to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. to a petition for certiorari.

For a petition for certiorari to prosper, the essential requisites that have to - Basic is the rule that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal
concur are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of
has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. In this case, appeal was
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy. Moreover, petitioner
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Alfredo failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the
general rule as to make available to him a petition for certiorari in lieu of making
- The phrase "without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack an appeal.
of authority or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a
cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular - The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under
matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. "Excess of Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative
jurisdiction" occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any or cumulative.
statutory authority; or results when an act, though within the general power of
a tribunal, board or officer (to do) is not authorized, and invalid with respect to 2. REPUBLIC vs. PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS INC.
the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the
exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. While that of "grave - The well-established rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable
abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for
as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. A
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC
personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an should be seasonably filed as a precondition for pursuing any further or
evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty subsequent recourse; otherwise, the order, resolution or decision would become
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt thereof. The rationale
for the rule is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify
 such errors or mistakes it may have committed before resort to courts of justice 3. DOMONDON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
can be had.
- The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua
- Of course, the rule is not absolute and jurisprudence has laid down exceptions non for the filing of a petition for certiorari, its purpose being to grant an
when the filing of a petition for certiorari is proper notwithstanding the failure opportunity for the court a quo to correct any actual or perceived error
to file a motion for reconsideration. Thus, resort to the courts under Rule 65 is attributed to it by a re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the
allowed even without a motion for reconsideration first having been filed: case.

a. where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as where
jurisdiction; the order is a patent nullity because the court a quo had no jurisdiction;
b. where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised
and passed upon in the lower court; and passed upon in the lower court; where there is an urgent necessity for the
c. where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any resolution of the question, and any further delay would prejudice the
further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the
petitioner or the subject matter of the petition is perishable; action is perishable; where, under the circumstances, a motion for
d. where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be reconsideration would be useless; where the petitioner was deprived of due
useless; process and there is extreme urgency for relief; where, in a criminal case, relief
e. where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency from an order of arrest is urgent and the grant of such relief by the trial court is
for relief; improbable; where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of
f. where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the due process; where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had
granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; no opportunity to object; and where the issue raised is one purely of law or
g. where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; where public interest is involved.[
h. where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object; and, The Court finds that the issue raised by petitioner had been duly raised and
i. where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. passed upon by the Sandiganbayan Third Division, it having denied
consolidation in two resolutions; that the issue calls for resolution and any
However, petitioner failed to show that this case falls under any of the further delay would prejudice the interests of petitioner; and that the issue
exceptions. According to petitioner, a motion for reconsideration would be raised is one purely of law, the facts not being contested. There is thus ample
inadequate and useless since the labor agency is bent on immediately proceeding justification for relaxing the rule requiring the prior filing of a motion for
with the execution, levy and sale on execution of the subject properties. But it is reconsideration.
not for petitioner to determine whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration
should be dispensed with. As enunciated in the case of Sim v. National Labor 4. ALMUETE vs. PEOPLE
Relations Commission:
- In People v. Court of Appeals, this Court reversed petitioners acquittal by the CA
It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never as it was made with grave abuse of discretion. This Court explained that an
demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of acquittal via a Petition for Certiorari is not allowed because "the authority to
judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it review perceived errors of the trial court in the exercise of its judgment and
only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law discretion x x x are correctible only by appeal by writ of error." Thus, in filing a
and the Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of Petition for Certiorari instead of an appeal, petitioner availed of the wrong
whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. To dispense with remedy. Thus:
the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show
a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so, which petitioner failed In this case, the RTC rendered judgment finding all the accused, respondents
to do. herein, guilty of the crime charged based on the evidence on record and the law
involved, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment as provided
- It must be emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration and filing it for in P.D. No. 705, in relation to Articles 304 and 305 of the Revised Penal Code.
on time are not mere technicalities of procedure. These are jurisdictional and They had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law to overturn the decision
mandatory requirements which must be strictly complied with. Thus, failure to as, in fact, they even filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on its
file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before availing oneself of the merits, and for the nullification of the promulgation of the said decision. Upon
special civil action for certiorari is a fatal infirmity. the trial courts denial of their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners had
the right to appeal, by writ of error, from the decision on its merits on questions
 of facts and of law. The appeal of the petitioners in due course was a plain, speedy - It has been held that what is determinative of the propriety of certiorari is the
and adequate remedy. In such appeal, the petitioners could question the findings danger of failure of justice without the writ, not the mere absence of all other
of facts of the trial court, its conclusions based on the said findings, as well as the legal remedies. The Court is satisfied that the denial of the Petition for Certiorari
penalty imposed by the court. It bears stressing that an appeal in a criminal case by the Court of Appeals will not result in a failure of justice, for petitioners rights
throws the whole case open for review and that the appellate court can reverse are adequately and, in fact, more appropriately addressed in the appeal.
any errors of the trial court, whether assigned or unassigned, found in its
judgment. However, instead of appealing the decision by writ of error, the
respondents filed their petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the decision
of the trial court on its merits. They questioned their conviction and the penalty
imposed on them, alleging that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt for the
crime charged, the evidence against them being merely hearsay and based on
mere inferences. In fine, the respondents alleged mere errors of judgment of the
trial court in their petition. It behooved the appellate court to have dismissed the
petition, instead of giving it due course and granting it.

The appellate court acted with grave abuse of its discretion when it ventured
beyond the sphere of its authority and arrogated unto itself, in the certiorari
proceedings, the authority to review perceived errors of the trial court in the
exercise of its judgment and discretion, which are correctible only by appeal by
writ of error. Consequently, the decision of the CA acquitting respondent
Almuete of the crime charged is a nullity. If a court is authorized by statute to
entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the
jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the
judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make a particular
judgment is akin to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In this case, the CA is
authorized to entertain and resolve only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of
judgment.

A void judgment has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose.
In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. It cannot impair or create rights; nor
can any right be based on it. Thus, respondent Almuete cannot base his claim of
double jeopardy on the appellate courts decision. (Emphasis supplied)

5. ESPIRITU vs. TANKIANSEE

- Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that a petition for
certiorari is available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for certiorari cannot
co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and the
availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special
civil action for certiorari. As the Court has held, these two remedies are mutually
exclusive. Petitioners appeal before the Court of Appeals is the appropriate and
adequate remedy, and the certiorari petition, subject matter of this case,
constitutes forum shopping.

In this case, the subsequent appeal constitutes an adequate remedy. In fact, it is