Prov Rem Case Digest

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE - RECOLETOS SCHOOL OF LAW S.
Y 2017 - 2018
Topic: Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies issued by the trial court for carrying out the directives in
the challenged EO 10.
Aquino vs.Mun. Of Malay, Aklan
G.R. No. 211356, September 29, 2014 Thus, the CA erred when it ruled that declaratory relief is
By: Aguilando, M.L the proper remedy given such a situation.
Bar Question: Topic: Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
A applied for a zoning compliance with the municipal Social Justice Society vs. Lim
government of Malay. The application was denied since
742 SCRA 1 November 25, 2014
the proposed construction site is within the “no build
zone.” A notice of assessment was sent to A asking for By: Ambrosio, S.
settlement of unpaid taxes and other liabilities and if not
complied with, the business of A will be closed. The Bar Question:
municipal treasurer refused to accept the payment. A
Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No.
then continued its construction and operation of the
8027 reclassifying the use of the land in Pandacan, Sta.
hotel. A cease and desist order was issued by the
Ana, and its adjoining areas from Industrial II to
municipal government, enjoining the expansion of the
Commercial I. An action for mandamus was filed to
resort. Then, the Mayor of Malay issued an EO 10
enforce Ordinance No. 8027. The Court granted the
ordering the closure and demolition of the resort. The EO
petition for mandamus, and directed Mayor A to
was partially implemented. Hence, A filed a Petition for
immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027. The oil
Certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief before the CA
companies filed an action for the annulment of
assailing the executive order issued. The CA dismissed
Ordinance No. 8027 with application for writs of
the petition on the ground that a petition for certiorari is
preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary
not a proper remedy but a petition for declaratory relief.
mandatory injunction. Writs were issued in their favor.
Is the Court of Appeals correct? Mayor A approved Ordinance No. 8119 entitled "An
Ordinance Adopting the Manila Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006 and providing
for the Administration, Enforcement and Amendment
Suggested Answer: thereto. The oil companies and the Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the DOE, filed their motions
No, the Court of Appeals is not correct.
for leave to intervene and for reconsideration. The
It is settled in the jurisprudence that an action for Court ruled on the constitutionality and validity of the
declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no assailed Ordinance.
actual breach of the instruments involved or of the rights
arising thereunder. Since the purpose of an action for
declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement During the incumbency of former Mayor L, who
of the rights and obligations of the parties under a succeeded, Mayor A, the Sangguniang Panlungsod
statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in the enacted Ordinance No. 8187 where the Industrial Zone
enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not under Ordinance No. 8119 was limited to Light Industrial
to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it Zone, Ordinance No. 8187 appended to the list a Medium
may be entertained before the breach or violation of the Industrial Zone and a Heavy Industrial Zone, where
statute, deed or contract to which it refers. petroleum refineries and oil depots are now among
those expressly allowed. Petitions for Prohibition,
In this case, the petition for declaratory relief became Mandamus and Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary
unavailable by EO 10’s enforcement and Restraining Order and/or Injunction against the
implementation. The closure and demolition of the hotel enforcement of Ordinance No. 8187 was filed by former
rendered futile any possible guidelines that may be Secretary of Department of Environment and Natural
Page 1
Provisional Remedies – Special Civil Action,
Compiled by the Class of Atty. Abraham Acosta
UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE - RECOLETOS SCHOOL OF LAW S.Y 2017 - 2018
Resources and then Mayor A, together with other Topic: Declaratory Relief
residents and taxpayers of the City of Manila alleging
violation of the right to health of the people and the right CITY OF LAPU-LAPU V. PEZA
to a healthful and balanced environment under Sections 742 SCRA 524
15 and 16 of the Constitution. Is the remedy under Rule By: Arrabis, C.
65 proper?
Bar Question:
Suggested Answer: PEZA was created by virtue RA No. 7916 or ‘Special

Economic Zone act of 2005’ to operate, administer,
manage and develop economic zones in the country. The
PEZA was granted the power to register, regulate, and
Yes, it was a proper remedy. supervise the enterprises located in the economic zones.
By virtue of the law, the export processing zone in
Although the instant petition is styled as a petition for Mariveles, Bataan became the Bataan Economic
certiorari, in essence, it seeks the declaration by this Zone16 and the Mactan Export Processing Zone the
Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the Mactan Economic Zone.
questioned ordinance and executive order. It, thus,
Thereafter, the City of Lapu-Lapu, through the Office of
partakes of the nature of a petition for declaratory relief
the Treasurer, demanded from the PEZA payment in real
over which this Court has only appellate, not original,
property taxes on the PEZA’s properties located in the
jurisdiction. The court initially found convincing the
Mactan Economic Zone.. It cited Sections 193 and 234 of
argument that the petitions should have been filed with
the Local Government Code of 1991 that withdrew the
the Regional Trial Court, it having concurrent jurisdiction
real property tax exemptions previously granted to or
with this Court over a special civil action for prohibition,
presently enjoyed by all persons. The City pointed out
and original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory
that no provision in the Special Economic Zone Act of
relief. However, the petitions at bar are of
1995 specifically exempted the PEZA from payment of
transcendental importance warranting a relaxation of
real property taxes, unlike Section 21 of Presidential
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Decree No. 66 that explicitly provided for EPZA’s
exemption. Since no legal provision explicitly exempted
In this case, the petitions should have been filed with the
the PEZA from payment of real property taxes, the City
Regional Trial Court, but the court have, time and again,
argued that it can tax the PEZA.
resolved to treat such a petition as one for prohibition,
provided that the case has far-reaching implications and
PEZA filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC of
transcendental issues that need to be resolved,as in
Pasay City. Trial court granted the PEZA’s petition for
these present petitions.
declaratory relief and declared it exempt from payment
of real property taxes that PEZA remained tax-exempt
Hence, the remedy is proper. regardless of Section 24 of the Special Economic Zone Act
of 1995. It ruled that Section 24, which taxes real
property owned by developers of economic zones, only
applies to private developers of economic zones, not to
public developers like the PEZA. The PEZA, therefore, is
not liable for real property taxes on the land it owns.
Is PEZA correct by availing the petition for declaratory

relief ?
Page 2
Suggested Answer: Bar Question:
No, PEZA is incorrect in availing declaratory relief, it On March 2007, Limkaichong filed with the COMELEC her
should be injunction. Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the House of
Representatives. Contending that she is not a natural-
Injunction “is a judicial writ, process or proceeding born Filipino citizen, two separate disqualification cases
whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a were filed against her before the COMELEC.
certain act.” “It may be the main action or merely a Subsequently, Limkaichong emerged winner in the
provisional remedy for and as incident in the main elections.
action.” The essential requisites of a writ of injunction
are: “(1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of On May 17, 2007, the COMELEC granted the petitions in
a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which the the disqualification cases and directed Provincial Board
injunction is directed to constitute a violation of such of Canvassers (PBOC) to strike her name from the list of
right.”1 eligible candidates. Aggrieved, Limkaichong filed a
Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC.
Subsequently, COMELEC en banc denied the Motion for
In this case, PEZA erred in availing itself of a petition for Reconsideration filed by the latter.
declaratory relief against the City. The City had already
issued demand letters and real property tax assessment On August 1, 2007, she filed with the Supreme Court
against the PEZA, in violation of the PEZA’s alleged tax- a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to Rule
exempt status under its charter. The Special Economic 64 praying for the annulment of the May 17, 2007 Joint
Zone Act of 1995, the subject matter of PEZA’s petition Resolution of the COMELEC the June 29, 2007 Resolution
for declaratory relief, had already been breached. The of the COMELEC En Banc in the disqualification cases for
trial court, therefore, had no jurisdiction over the having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
petition for declaratory relief. amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Instead of a petition for declaratory relief, the PEZA Whether or not certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to
should have directly resorted to a judicial action. The Rule 64 was proper.
PEZA should have filed a complaint for injunction, the
“appropriate ordinary civil action” to enjoin the City from
enforcing its demand and collecting the assessed taxes Suggested Answer:
from the PEZA. After all, a declaratory judgment as to
the PEZA’s tax-exempt status is useless unless the City is No, the certiorari was not properly filed.
enjoined from enforcing its demand.
The City confused the concepts of jurisdiction and venue Section 1 of Rule 64 provides that the rule shall govern
in contending that the Regional Trial Court of Pasay had the review of judgments and final orders or resolutions
no jurisdiction because the real properties involved in of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on
this case are located in the City of Lapu-Lapu. Audit.
Therefore, the filing of declaratory relief is incorrect. In the case at bar, the May 17, 2007 resolution of the
COMELEC disqualifying Limkaichong and suspending her
proclamation cannot yet be implemented considering
that she timely filed a motion for reconsideration. Thus,
Topic: Certiorari in relation to Rule 64 pursuant to Section 13(c), Rule 18 and Section 2 Rule 19
of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Joint Resolution
has not yet attained finality for it to be implemented.
LIMKAICHONG VS COMELEC
Therefore, having no finality yet of the judgment, Rule 65
GR 178831-32, April 1, 2009
in relation to Rule 64 cannot be properly assailed in this
By: Bautista, S case.
Topic: Review of Judgments of COMELEC and COA
Page 3
TESDA vs. Commission on Audit CAUSING VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 196418. February 10, 2015 G.R. No. 199139, September 09, 2014
By: Brigoli, C. By: Bulanon, J.
Bar Question: Bar Question:
X authorized the payment of healthcare maintenance Mayor B issued a memorandum ordering the detail of EC,
allowance to all its officials and employees, including its the Municipal Civil Registrar, be transferred to the
bureaus and attached agencies. Y is an attached agency. Mayor's office. EC filed a complaint claiming that the
memorandum issued being within the election period
COA issued a Notice of Disallowance to Y for the lack of and without prior authority from the COMELEC was
legal basis of the grant of allowance. illegal. The Provincial Election Supervisor recommended
the dismissal of the complaint-affidavit for lack of
Y argued that there was legal basis as it was pusuant to
probable cause. COMELEC En Banc affirmed the findings
DOLE directive which was based from M.C. No. 33 and
and recommendation. Hence, EC then filed certiorari
2003 GAA.
under Rule 64. Mayor B claimed that EC’s motion should
Whether or not COA committed grave abuse of be dismissed because of the failure to file a motion for
discretion in issuing the Notice of Disallowance. reconsideration in the COMELEC.
Is Mayor B correct?
Suggested Answer:
No there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Suggested Answer:

COA.
Yes Mayor B is correct.
COA has the power to ascertain whether public funds
Rule 64 is generally identical with certiorari under Rule
were utilized for the purpose intended by law.
65, except as to the period of the filing of the petition for
certiorari. It is a well-established rule is that the motion
for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before
In the case at bar, the cited bases were misplaced. The an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action
giving of allowance to Y's employees was not among any for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The
of the hospitalization services or examinations listed in filing of the motion for reconsideration before the resort
M.C. No. 33. 2003 GAA only reiterated the rule that the to certiorari will lie is intended to afford to the public
personnel benefits costs of government officials and respondent the opportunity to correct any actual or
employees should be charged against the funds from fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of
which their compensations are paid. This was neither a the legal and factual aspects of the case. However, this
source of right nor an authority to hastily fund any or all rule is not absolute, considering that jurisprudence has
personnel benefits without the appropriation being laid down exceptions to the requirement for the filing of
made by law. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury a petition for certiorari without first filing a motion for
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. reconsideration.
There being no legal basis, there can be no grave abuse The case at bar shows that none of the exceptions was
of discretion as COA is justified in issuing the Notice of applicable herein. Hence, EC should have filed the
Disallowance. motion for reconsideration, especially because there was
nothing in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure that
precluded the filing of the motion for reconsideration in
election offense cases.
Topic: Review of Judgments of Comelec and COA
Page 4
Hence, EC’s petition should be dismissed. Suggested Answer:
Principle: No, A was not correct in filing a petition for certiorari

against the COMELEC.
Filing a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable
condition before a party can resort to filing certiorari A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64, in
under Rule 65, however with the following exceptions: relation to Rule 65, is an independent action that is
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court available only if there is no appeal or any other plain,
a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and law. It is a legal remedy that is limited to the resolution
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those of jurisdictional issues and is not meant to correct simple
raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where errors of judgment. More importantly, it will only
there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the prosper if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and is
question, and any further delay would prejudice the actually proved to exist.
interests of the Government, or of the petitioner, or the In the case at bar, A failed to prove that the COMELEC
subject matter of the petition is perishable; (d) where, rendered its decision with grave abuse of discretion. The
under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration petition for disqualification against B for campaign over-
would be useless; (e) where the petitioner was deprived spending before the Commission is heard and resolved
of due process, and there is extreme urgency for relief; pursuant to the electoral aspect of Section 68 of the OEC.
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest It is through this administrative proceeding that
is urgent, and the granting of such relief by the trial court this Commission, initially through its divisions, makes a
is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower factual determination on the veracity of the parties'
court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the respective allegations in a disqualification case.
proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had
no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised Therefore, B was not correct in filing a petition for
is one purely of law or public interest is involved. certiorari against the COMELEC.
Topic: Review of Judgments of COMELEC and COA

TOPIC: CERTIORARI, PROHIBITON AND MANDAMUS
Emilio Ramon "E.R." Ejercito vs. Hon. Commission on
Heirs of Julio Sobremonte vs. CA
Elections and Edgar San Luis
G.R. No. 206234 October 22, 2014
G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014
By: Casanares, A.
By: Capao, H.
Bar Question:
Bar Question:
The heirs of X and Y co-owned a lot which was placed
Three days prior to the elections, A filed a disqualification under the government’s Operation Land Transfer (OLT)
case for gubernatorial position against B before the program pursuant to PD 27 on emancipation of tenants
Office of the COMELEC alleging that B committed and declaring ownership of land by tenants. During X’s
election offenses, such as overspending and vote-buying. lifetime, she filed a protest before the Municipal Agrarian
The COMELEC First division granted the petition for Reform Office (MARO) alleging that no tenancy
disqualification against B. Such decision was agreed by relationship existed between her and the identified
the COMELEC en banc. A filed a petition for certiorari farmer-beneficiaries of the property. DAR Secretary
against the COMELEC. affirmed MARO’s and DAR Regional Director’s decision
dismissing the complaint. X filed a petition for certiorari
Was B correct in filing a petition for certiorari against the under Rule 65 with the CA which was dismissed by the
COMELEC? latter. X then filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.
Page 5
Should the action be granted? SC a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
Suggested Answer:
Is the action for certiorari proper?
No, the action should not be granted.
Suggested Answer:
A writ of certiorari maybe issued only for the correction
of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion No, the petition for certiorari under Rule 45 filed by X is
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as its function not proper.
is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds
of its jurisdiction."Grave abuse of discretion" implies Under Section 1 of Rule 45, a party aggrieved by the
such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to decision of final order of the CA, Sandiganbyaan, RTC or
be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. other courts may file a petition for review on certiorari
with the SC. But this must be read in relation to Section
In this case, no abuse of discretion, grave or simple in 1 of Rule 122 which provides that any party may appeal
nature was committed by the CA in dismissing the from a judgment or final order "unless the accused will
petitioners’ certiorari petition for being the wrong mode thereby be placed in double jeopardy." The judgment
of appeal. The CA’s dismissal of the certiorari petition is, that may be appealed by the aggrieved party envisaged
in fact, well-supported by law and jurisprudence. It was in the Rule is a judgment convicting the accused, and not
held that Rule 43 of the Rules of Court shall govern the a judgment of acquittal. The State is barred from
procedure for judicial review of decisions, orders, or appealing such judgment of acquittal by a petition for
resolutions of the DAR Secretary, and that an appeal review.
taken to the Supreme Court or the CA by the wrong or
inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. In the case at hand, the petitioner filed a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in In applying the principles stated, since the case is one of
issuing its assailed resolutions. Hence, the action should acquittal, X is barred from appealing such judgment of
be dismissed. acquittal by a petition for review. This is because for Rule
45 to apply it must only be upon a judgment convicting
the accused. Section 21, Article III of the Constitution
Topic: CERTIORARI, PRHIBITION AND MANDAMUS provides that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy
of punishment for the same offense." The rule is that a
DENNIS T. VILLAREAL vs. ALIGA judgment acquitting the accused is final and immediately
G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014 executory upon its promulgation, and that accordingly,
By: De las llagas, D. the State may not seek its review without placing the
accused in double jeopardy. Such acquittal is final and
unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy whether
Bar Question: it happens at the trial court or on appeal at the CA. Thus,
the State is proscribed from appealing the judgment of
Y works as an accountant of Company ABC while X in the acquittal of the accused to this Court under Rule 45 of
president and general manager. Through investigations the Rules of Court. But a judgment of acquittal may be
conducted, Y was found by X encashing checks changing assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under
the amount stated therein and converting it to her own Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused
personal use and benefit. Respondent Y was charged for in double jeopardy. However, in such case, the People is
the crime of qualified theft thru falsification of burdened to establish that the court a quo, in this case,
commercial document. The trial court found Y guilty of the Sandiganbayan, trial court, or CA acted without
the crime with the evidence presented that constituted jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Y appealed to the CA in excess or lack of jurisdiction.
which reversed the decision of the lower court acquitting
her of the crime charged. Hence, petitioner filed with the
Page 6
Therefore, the petition for certiorari under Rule 45 filed In this case, having established through substantial
by X is not proper. evidence that Mr. X’s injury was self-inflicted and, hence,
not compensable pursuant to Section 20 (D) of the 1996
POEA-SEC. No grave abuse of discretion can be imputed
TOPIC: Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus against the NLRC in upholding LA’s decision to dismiss his
complaint for disability benefits.
INC SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC VS MORADAS
713 SCRA 475 Principle:
By: Dimol, C. There is grave abuse of discretion when an act of a court
or tribunal was done in a capricious or whimsical exercise
of judgment asis equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Bar Question:
Mr. X was employed as a wiper for the vessel owned by

Y Company. Topic: Certiorari
Mr. X met an accident while working in the vessel.
A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar
Certain chemicals splashed all over his body because the
714 SCRA 514
vessel’s incinerator exploded and suffered deep burns
By: Fabe, J.
because of the explosion. The burns suffered rendered
him permanently incapable as a seaman. So, Mr. X filed
a labor complaint demanding payment of his full
Bar Question:
disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency (POEA) and Standard Employment X filed a complaint for collection of sum of money for the
Contract (POEA-SEC) to Y Company. Y Company refused unpaid water bills against Y under Rule of Procedure for
to heed because the injuries suffered were self-inflicted Small Claims Cases before the MTCC. In his defense, Y
hence not compensable under the POEA-SEC. contended that he religiously paid X the agreed monthly
flat rate for her water consumption. MTCC ruled in favor
of Y prompting X to file a petition for certiorari under
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Y Company. The NLRC
Rule 65 with the RTC which was dismissed by the latter
sustained the findings of the Labor Arbiter. It gave due
finding that the said petition was only filed to circumvent
credence to the evidence presented absent any showing
the non-appealable nature of small claims cases. X then
that Y Company was motivated by ill-will. On appeal, the
filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.
Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NRLC
holding grave abuse of discretion.
Should the action be granted?
Was there grave abuse of discretion?
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the action should be granted.

Suggested Answer:
No, there was no grave abuse of discretion. The Court has consistently ruled that "the extraordinary
writ of certiorari is always available where there is no
Based on jurisprudence, it is well-settled that an act of a appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
court or tribunal can only be considered to be tainted in the ordinary course of law. Considering the final
with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a nature of a small claims case decision under the above-
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its
execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in
small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where
Page 7
appeal is not an available remedy does not preclude the Suggested Answer:
aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. No, the Sandiganbayan properly exercised its discretion
over evidence formally offered by the prosecution.
In this case, X correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari
to assail the propriety of the MTCC Decision in the Nothing therein shows that the court gravely exceeded
subject small claims case, contrary to the RTC’s ruling. its jurisdiction. For the reviewing court to interfere with
Owing to its nature, it is therefore incumbent upon the exercise of discretion by the lower court, the
petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted petitioner must show that the former's action was
the MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant attended by grave abuse of discretion, defined as a
or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment,
whether or not the MTCC gravely abused its discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power
by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice,
evidence that is material to the controversy. Likewise, X or personal hostility, so patent or so gross as to amount
filed the petition before the proper forum. to an evasion of a positive duty, to a virtual refusal to
perform the mandated duty, or to act at all in
In fine, the RTC erred in dismissing the said petition on contemplation of the law.
the ground that it was an improper remedy. Hence, the
action should be granted. In this case, the Sandiganbayan’s exercise of this power
is neither whimsical nor oppressive. A writ of certiorari is
available only to review final judgments or decrees, and
will be refused where there has been no final judgment
Topic: Certiorari or order and the proceeding for which the writ is sought
is still pending and undetermined in the lower tribunal.
Republic vs Sandiganbayan Pursuant to this rule, it has been held that certiorari will
722 SCRA 211 - April 21, 2014 not lie to review or correct discovery orders made prior
By: Gala, L. to trial. After failing to submit the documentary evidence
during discovery, when it was clearly ordered by both the
Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court to do so,
Bar Question: petitioner also repeatedly failed to prove the due
execution and authenticity of the documents. Having
X, through the PCGG, commenced a complaint for failed in its belated attempts to assuage the
"reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and Sandiganbayan through the submission of secondary
damages against Y. Pre-trial commenced and the evidence, petitioner may not use the present forum to
temporary markings of Exhibits "A" to "LLL" of X, gain relief under the guise of Rule 65.
together with their sub-markings, were adopted.
However, over the objections of Y, the PCGG produced Thus, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of
and caused the pre-marking of additional documents, discretion in excluding the documents due to petitioner’s
Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA." Y filed a "Motion under own failure to produce them at the pre-trial.
Rule 29 of the Rules of Court," claiming that the
additional documents were never produced at the
discovery proceedings and praying that X be sanctioned Topic: Certiorari
for contempt. The Sandiganbayan denied, but later
granted the motion. Bank Of Commerce Vs Radio Philippines Network Inc.
G.R. NO. 195615 APRIL 21, 2014
Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion By: Gimang, M.
in excluding the documents due to petitioner’s own
failure to produce them at the pre-trial?
Bar Question:
Page 8
BC Bank entered into a Purchase & Assumption parte, depriving an opportunity to object; and d) the
Agreement with TR Bank and acquired its specific assets issues raised were purely questions of law.
and liabilities, excluding liabilities arising from judicial
actions which were to be covered by the BSP mandated In this case, BC Bank fell the recognized exceptions to
escrow of 50 million pesos. To comply with the mandate, the need to file a motion for reconsideration before filing
TR Bank placed the specified amount to MT Bank to a petition for certiorari. First, the filing of a motion for
answer for those claims and liabilities that were reconsideration would be redundant since actually the
excluded. RTC’s Order granted the application for the issuance of
the alias writ of execution. Second, an urgent necessity
Shortly after approval, acting in TR Bank vs RP Network for the immediate resolution of the case by the CA
case, the court ordered TR Bank to pay RP Network existed because any further delay would have greatly
actual damages plus 12 % legal interest and some prejudiced BC Bank. The Sheriff had been resolute and
amounts. RP Network, rather than pursuing a levy on relentless in trying to execute the judgment and dispose
execution filed a supplemental motion for execution of the levied assets of BC Bank.
based on the assumption that TR Bank had been merged
to BC Bank. Clearly, BC Bank has valid justifications for skipping the
technical requirement of a motion for reconsideration.
Having learned such, BC Bank filed an opposition thereto
questioning the jurisdiction and denying the merger of
the TR Bank and BC Bank. RTC issued and order granting
and issuing the writ of execution to cover all the assets
including those subject to the P & A Agreement. This Topic: Certiorari; Perfection of an appeal
prompted BC Bank to file for petition for certiorari in CA.
CA, however, modified only the lower court’s decision. Sarah Lee Philippines, Inc. vs. Emilinda Macatlang et al
G.R. No. 180147. June 4, 2014
Did the CA gravely erred in holding that BC Bank had no
By: Icao, G.
valid excuse in failing to file the required motion for
reconsideration of the assailed RTC Order before coming
to the CA via petition for certiorari. Bar Question:
A Notice of Permanent Closure filed by Aris with the

DOLE stating that it will permanently cease its
Suggested Answer:
operations. The Union, which represents the rank-and-
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that that BC Bank file employees of Aris, staged a strike for violation of duty
had no valid excuse in failing to file the required motion to bargain collectively, 7 union busting and illegal
for reconsideration of the assailed RTC Order before closure. A complaint for illegal dismissal was filed,
coming to the CA. incorporating FAPI. The Labor Arbiter rendered
judgment dismissing the 5,984 complainants as illegal
Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that a petition and awarding them separation pay and other monetary
for certiorari may only be filed when there is no plain, benefits amount to P3.4 billion. The Corporations filed a
speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law. Since Notice of Appeal with Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond
a motion for reconsideration is generally regarded as a and to Admit Reduced Amount with NLRC. They asked
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, the failure to first NLRC to reduce the appeal bond claiming that it would
take recourse to is usually regarded as fatal omission. be impossible for the insurance to cover the appeal
However, there are some recognize exceptions to the bond. NLRC granted the reduction of the bond.
rule: a) there was an urgent necessity for the CS to Macatlang, et al., filed a petition for certiorari before CA
resolve the questions it raised and further delay would claiming that it committed grave abuse of discretion in
prejudice its interest; b) under circumstances, a motion giving due course to the appeal despite the gross
for reconsideration would have been useless; c) insufficiency of the cash bond. While the case was
petitioner would have been deprived of its right to due pending, the NLRC set aside the Decision of the labor
process when the RTC issued the challenge order ex arbiter and remanding the case for further proceeding.
Page 9
As a result, the Corporations filed a motion to dismiss the Bar Question:

petition for certiorari for being moot and academic.
Court of Appeals subsequently reverse and set aside the On September 24, 2010, D filed a petition for relief from
decision of the NLRC and deemed it reasonable to order judgment rendered by the trial court on January 29,
the posting of an additional appeal bond. 2010, blaming old lawyer who failed to file the notice of
appeal within the reglementary period. The trial court
Did the subsequent NLRC ruling on the merits during denied the petition for it was filed beyond 60 days from
the pendency of the petition questioning an the finality of the trial court’s decision.
interlocutory order renders the petition moot and
academic? On July 13, 2011, D filed the petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals. The appellate court denied outright
Suggested Answer: the petition for failure to file a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying the petition for
No. The requisites for perfection of appeal as embodied relief from judgment. D filed a motion for
in Article 223 of the Labor Code are: 1) payment of reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the petition
appeal fees; 2) filing of the memorandum of appeal; and before the court arguing they need not file a motion for
3) payment of the required cash or surety bond. These reconsideration of the order denying their petition for
requisites must be satisfied within 10 days from receipt relief from judgment because the questions they raised
of the decision or order appealed from. NLRC Rules and were purely questions of law.
Procedure allow the filing of a motion to reduce bond on
two (2) conditions: (1) that there is meritorious ground Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing outright
and (2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted. petitioner’s petition for certiorari for failure to file a
Compliance with the two conditions stops the running of motion for reconsideration of the order denying the
the period to perfect an appeal provided that they are petition for relief from judgment.
complied within the 10-day reglementary period.
Suggested Answer:
In this case, when the NLRC granted the motion to
reduce the appeal bond and the Corporations posted the No.Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
required additional bond, the appeal was deemed to requires that no appeal or any plain, speedy, and
have been perfected. The act of the NLRC in deciding the adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is
case was based on petitioner’s appeal of the labor available to a party before a petition for certiorari is
arbiter's ruling, which it deemed to have been perfected filed.
and therefore, ripe for decision. Prudence however
In this case, a motion for reconsideration of the order
dictates that the NLRC should not have decided the case
denying the petition for relief from judgment is the plain,
on its merits during the pendency of the instant petition.
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
The very issue raised in the petitions determines
law. Petitioners failed to avail themselves of this remedy.
whether or not the appeal by the Corporations has been
Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed
perfected. Until its resolution, the NLRC should have held
petitioners’ petition for certiorari.
in abeyance the resolution of the case to prevent the
case from being mooted. The NLRC decision was issued PRINCIPLE: A motion for reconsideration is required
prematurely. before a petition for certiorari is filed “to grant the court
which rendered the assailed judgment or order an
opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error
Topic: Certiorari attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and
factual circumstances of the case.
Madarang vs Morales
GR No. 199283, June 9, 2014
By: Lacida, N. Topic: Certiorari
Dr. Joel Mendez vs People of the Philippines

Page 10
GR NO. 179962 June 11, 2014 R filed a complaint to get the refund of the total value of
By: Licayan, A. misdelivered, unsalable, defective and/or damaged
goods, and to enjoin A and P from encashing the
remaining post-dated checks in their possession. The
complaint, docketed as Civil Case No 1, was raffled to RTC
Bar Question:
Branch 1, which was presided by Judge M. The RTC issued
BIR filed information with CTA. BIR alleged that A failed a writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting A and P from
to file his income tax returns for year 2001-3003. A encashing the postdated checks. P moved to reconsider
countered that his business was registered only in 2003. the issuance of the writ for lack of factual basis. The RTC
BIR filed a motion to amend information. The CTA ruled issued an order sustaining the issuance of the writ of
in favor of the BIR. A filed a motion for reconsideration preliminary injunction. A and P separately moved for the
but CTA denied. A filed petition for certiorari and voluntary inhibition of Judge Mfor his alleged bias
prohibition under Rule 65 questioning the denial of its towards R. Judge M recused himself from the case, but
motion for reconsideration. R moved to reconsider his voluntary inhibition.
Thereafter, the case was re-raffled to the RTC Branch 2,
Is certiorari the proper remedy in questioning the CTA which was presided by Judge E.
resolution?
R contested the re-raffling of the case due to its pending
motion for reconsideration of Judge M’s voluntary
inhibition. Judge M denied R’s motion for
Suggested Answer:
reconsideration and the records of the case were
Yes the certiorari is the correct remedy. subsequently transferred to Branch 3. P filed a petition
for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, certiorari is available restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction
when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and before the CA. In his petition, P sought to dissolve the
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A writ enjoining him from encashing the post-dated
judgment or order is considered final if it disposes of the checks. The CA dissolved the writ of preliminary
action or proceeding completely, or terminates a injunction with respect to P for lack of factual basis. The
particular stage of the same action, in such case the CA held that R failed to prove that it had a clear and
remedy available is appeal. If the order however merely unmistakable right to be protected that warrants the
resolves incidental matters and leaves something more issuance of the writ. This decision eventually became
to be done to resolve the merits of the case, the order is final and entry of judgment was made.
interlocutory and the aggrieved party’s only remedy
after failing to obtain a reconsideration of the ruling is a R assailed Judge M’s inhibition from the case in a petition
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 123 before the
CA. R argued that Judge M’s perceived bias in its favor
In this case, the CTA resolution allowed the amendment was unfounded, and that the preservation of the parties’
of information by BIR. The resolution merely resolves trust and confidence was an insufficient ground for Judge
incidental matters. After failing in his bid for the CTA to M’s inhibition. The RTC held that the issue of whether
reconsider its admission of the amended information, Judge M should hear Civil Case No. 1 presented a
the only remedy left to A is to file a petition for certiorari. jurisdictional question that prevented Branch 3 from
resolving P’s pending motions. Hence, P filed a petition
for certiorari assailing the orders of the RTC before the
Topic: Certiorari CA. In a decision, the CA ruled that the events that had
Trajano vs Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club transpired before Branch 1 of the RTC provoked the
GR No. 190253, June 11, 2014, parties’ suspicions that Judge M prejudged the case,
By: Lim, N. which warranted his inhibition.41 The CA also denied R’s
motion for reconsideration,42 prompting R to elevate the
case before the Supreme Court in R vs A docketed as G.R.
Bar Question: No. 193972, before the Court’s First Division
Page 11
the proceedings in the lower court. A petition

Whether the petition availed of the proper remedy in for certiorari does not divest the lower courts of
appealing the CA resolution. jurisdiction validly acquired over the case pending before
them. A petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an
Whether the CA erred in not finding that the RTC original action; it is not a continuation of the proceedings
committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending the in the lower court. It is designed to correct only errors of
proceedings in Civil Case No. 1. jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion
Suggested Answer: amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.Under Section
7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the higher court should
1. Yes, Trajano(P) properly availed of a Rule 45 petition in issue against the public respondent a temporary
assailing the January 3, 2008 decision and the October restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction in
28, 2009 resolution of the Court of Appeals order to interrupt the course of the principal case.
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the In the case at bar, the appellate court erroneously
Rules of Court invokes the Court's appellate jurisdiction applied the principle of judicial courtesy in the current
over questions of law that has been decided by the lower case. There is no strong probability that the issue of the
courts with finality. The CA decision assailed by the propriety of Judge M's voluntary inhibition in CA-G.R. SP
present petition involves its final order regarding the No. 123 would be rendered moot and academic by the
alleged grave abuse of discretion involved in the RTC's continuation of the proceedings in the trial court.
interlocutory orders.This CA decision should not be Furthermore, whether Judge M properly inhibited
confused with the RTC's interlocutory orders that had himself from the case does not pose any jurisdictional
been disputed before the CA, which was correctly problem in resolving the issues in Civil Case No. 1.
contested by Trajano(P) through a petition for certiorari.
In J.L. Bernardo Construction v. Court of Appeals,[50] we We agree with P that jurisdiction vests in the trial court,
stated that a petition for certiorari is an appropriate not in the judges. We also point out in this respect that
remedy to assail an interlocutory order: (1) when the the various branches of the RTC are coordinate and co-
tribunal issued such order without or in excess of equal courts whose totality constitutes only one RTC.
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and (2) Each of the RTC's branches is not a court separate and
when the assailed interlocutory order is patently distinct from the other branches. When a complaint is
erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford filed before one branch or judge, jurisdiction does not
adequate and expeditious relief. attach to this branch or judge alone, to the exclusion of
the others. Trial may be had or proceedings may
In the case at bar, Trajano(P) correctly filed a petition continue by and before another branch or judge. The
for certiorari before the CA in order to strike down the different branches in the RTC do not possess jurisdictions
RTC's interlocutory orders that he claims to have been independent of and incompatible with each other.
issued with grave abuse of discretion. In the same vein,
Trajano's(P) present petition for review on certiorari is Therefore, The mere pendency of a special civil action for
also the proper remedy, as it questions the CA's final certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending
order regarding the RTC's interlocutory orders. before a lower court does not automatically interrupt
the proceedings in the lower court.
Therefore, The petition is not procedurally infirm
because Trajano(P) properly availed of a Rule 45
petition Topic: Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65)
2. Yes, The RTC should continue with the proceedings in Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Philtranco
Civil Case No. 1 during the pendency of G.R. No. 193972 Workers Union-Association of Genuine Labor
Organization , 717 SCRA 340
The mere pendency of a special civil action By: Tamse, H
for certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending
before a lower court does not automatically interrupt Bar Question:
Page 12
In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling

PS Inc., a local land transportation company, retrenched that petitioner availed of the erroneous remedy in filing
21 of its employees on the ground that it was suffering a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 instead of under
business losses. Consequently, the company union, PW Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. It has long been settled that
Union, filed a Notice of Strike with the Department of the remedy of an aggrieved party in a decision or
Labor and Employment (DOLE), claiming that petitioner resolution of the Secretary of Labor is to timely file a
engaged in unfair labor practices. Unable to settle their motion for reconsideration as precondition for any
differences in the preliminary conference, the case was further subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a
referred to the Office of the Secretary of DOLE. special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. Petitioner received a copy
On June 13, 2007, the DOLE Secretary issued an order of the Acting Secretary of Labor’s Decision on June 14,
against the PS Inc directing the company to reinstate the 2007. It timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June
17 illegally terminated officers to their former positions 25, which was a Monday, or the first working day
without loss of seniority rights and pay them following the last day (Sunday, June 24) for filing the
BACKWAGES from the time of termination until their motion. But for lack of procedural basis, the same was
actual or payroll reinstatement. effectively denied by the Secretary of Labor via his
August 15, 2007 Order which petitioner received on
PS Inc. received a copy of the petition on the following August 17. It then filed the Petition for Certiorari on
day and filed a motion for reconsideration on June 25, August 29, or well within the fresh 60–day period
2007 which was declined by the DOLE Secretary citing a allowed by the Rules from August 17.
DOLE regulation which provided that voluntary
arbitrators’ decisions, orders, resolutions or awards shall
not be the subject of motions for reconsideration.
On August 29, 2007, PS Inc. filed before the CA an original

Petition for Certiorari but was dismissed since petitioner
erred in filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules, when it should have filed a petition for
review under Rule 43 thereof, which properly covers
decisions of voluntary labor arbitrators. The CA added Topic: Certiorari
that since the assailed Decision was not timely appealed
within the reglementary 15–day period under Rule 43, Lui Enterprises, Inc Vs Zuellig Pharma Corporation
the same became final and executory. Petitioner filed a G.R. No. 193494, March 07, 2014
motion for reconsideration but was denied. By: Abastillas, T
Is the Petition for Certiorari was timely filed?

Bar Question:
Lui Enterprises, Inc. and ZuelligPharma Corporation

Suggested Answer: entered into a 10–year contract of lease over a parcel of
land.
Yes, the Petition for Certiorari was timely filed.
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure states that ZuelligPharma received a letter from the Philippine Bank
where a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely of Communications. Claiming to be the new owner of the
filed, whether such motion is required or not, the leased property, the bank asked ZuelligPharma to pay
petition shall be filed not later than 60 days counted from rent directly to it. ZuelligPharma promptly informed Lui
the notice of the denial of the motion. Enterprises of the Philippine Bank of Communications’
claim. Lui Enterprises wrote to ZuelligPharma and
insisted on its right to collect the leased property’s rent.
Page 13
Due to the conflicting claims of Lui Enterprises and the corporation has the better right to the rental
Philippine Bank of Communications over the rental payments].”
payments, ZuelligPharma filed a complaint10 for
interpleader with the Regional Trial Court of Makati. In In this petition for review on certiorari ,62Lui Enterprises
its complaint, ZuelligPharma alleged that it already argued that the Court of Appeals applied “the rules of
consigned in court P604,024.35 as rental payments. procedure strictly”63 and dismissed its appeal on
ZuelligPharma prayed that it be allowed to consign in technicalities. According to Lui Enterprises, the Court of
court its succeeding monthly rental payments and that Appeals should have taken a liberal stance and allowed
Lui Enterprises and the Philippine Bank of its appeal despite the lack of subject index, page
Communications be ordered to litigate their conflicting references to the record, table of cases, textbooks and
claims. statutes cited, and the statement of issues in its
appellant’s brief.
According to Lui Enterprises, an earlier filed nullification
of deed of dation in payment case pending with the The Philippine Bank of Communications filed its
Regional Trial Court of Davao barred the filing of the comment68 on the petition for review on certiorari . It
interpleader case.16Lui Enterprises filed this nullification argued that Lui Enterprises failed to raise any error of law
case against the Philippine Bank of Communications with and prayed that we affirm in toto the Court of Appeals’
respect to several properties it dationed to the bank in decision.
payment of its obligations. The property leased by
ZuelligPharma was among those allegedly dationed to For ZuelligPharma, it manifested that it was adopting the
the Philippine Bank of Communications. Philippine Bank of Communications’ arguments in its
comment
ZuelligPharma filed its opposition22 to the motion to
dismiss. It argued that the motion to dismiss should be Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Lui
denied for having been filed late. Under Rule 16, Section Enterprises’ appeal for lack of subject index, page
1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to references to the record, table of cases, textbooks and
dismiss should be filed within the required time given to statutes cited, and the statement of issues in Lui
file an answer to the complaint, which is 15 days from Enterprises’ appellant’s brief;
service of summons on the defendant.23 Summons was
served on Lui Enterprises on July 4, 2003. It had until July Suggested Answer:
19, 2003 to file a motion to dismiss, but Lui Enterprises
filed the motion only on July 23, 2003. No. Lui Enterprises did not comply with the
rules on the contents of the appellant’s
As to Lui Enterprises’ claim that the interpleader case brief
was filed without authority, ZuelligPharma argued that
an action interpleader “is a necessary consequence of In this case, Lui Enterprises did not substantially comply
the action for consignation.”25ZuelligPharma consigned with the rules on the contents of the appellant’s brief. It
its rental payments because of “the clearly conflicting admitted that its appellant’s brief lacked the required
claims of [Lui Enterprises] and [the Philippine Bank of subject index, page references to the record, and table
Communications].”26 Since Atty. Ana L.A. Peralta was of cases, textbooks, and statutes cited. However, it did
authorized to file a consignation case, this authority not even correct its admitted “technical omissions”82 by
necessarily included an authority to file the interpleader filing an amended appellant’s brief with the required
case. contents.83 Thus, this case does not allow a relaxation of
the rules. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing
In its manifestation and motion to dismiss, Lui Lui Enterprises’ appeal.
Enterprises reiterated its prayer for the dismissal of the
interpleader case to prevent “the possibility of [the Lui Enterprises’ appellant’s brief lacked a subject index,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati City] and [the page references to the record, and a table of cases,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City] rendering textbooks, and statutes cited. These requirements “were
conflicting rulings [on the same issue of which designed to assist the appellate court in the
Page 14
accomplishment of its tasks, and, overall, to enhance the

orderly administration of justice.”92 This court will not
disregard rules on appeal “in the guise of liberal Suggested Answer:
construction.”93 For this court to liberally construe the
Yes. To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of
Rules, the party must substantially comply with the Rules
certiorari, petitioners must satisfactorily show that the
and correct its procedural lapses.94Lui Enterprises failed
court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the
to remedy these errors.
discretion conferred upon it. Grave abused of discretion
connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and
All told, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Lui
whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of
Enterprises’ appeal. It failed to comply with Rule 44,
jurisdiction. To be considered “grave,” discretion must
Section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (f) of the 1997
be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion
Rules of Civil Procedure on the required contents of the
or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as
appellant’s brief.
to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in
Topic: Certiorari contemplation of law. In labor disputes, grave abuse of
discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia,
Omni Hauling Services, Inc. vs. Bon its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not
G.R. No. 199388 September 3, 2014 supported by substantial evidence. This requirement of
By: Abangan, R. substantial evidence is clearly expressed in Section 5,
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides that “[i]n
cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies,
Bar Question: a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by
substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
Omni was awarded one year service contract by the local evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
government to provide garbage hauling services. Omni adequate to justify a conclusion.”
hired Bon and his co-workers (Bons) as garbage truck
drivers and paleros. When the service contract was Guided by these considerations, the Court finds that the
renewed for another year, Omni required each of its CA correctly granted respondents’ certiorari petition
employee to sign employment contracts which provide since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it held
that they will be “re-hired” only for the duration of the that respondents were project employees despite
same period. However, Bons refused to sign the petitioners’ failure to establish their project employment
employment contracts. They were claiming that they status through substantial evidence.
were regular employees since they were engaged to
perform activities which were necessary and desirable to Principle: To justify the grant of the extraordinary
Omni’s usual business or trade. LA and NLRC ruled that remedy of certiorari, petitioners must satisfactorily show
Bons were not illegally dismissed on the ground that they that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused
were not regular but merely project employees whose the discretion conferred upon it.
hiring was solely depended on the aforesaid service
contract. Thus, when respondents refused to sign the
employment contracts for the subsequent period, there
was no dismissal to speak of, but rather, a mere Topic: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
expiration of respondents’ previous contracts. In petition
for certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside
the NLRC’s earlier pronouncements for failure of Omni to Bahia Shipping Services vs. Joel P. Hipe, Jr.
establish Bon’s project employment status through G.R. No. 204699 November 12, 2014
substantial evidence. By: Abragan, M.
Was the Court of Appeals correct in granting Bons’

petition for certiorari? Bar Question:
Page 15
X was hired by Bahia as plumber for a vessel under a six Topic: Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
month contract. After the lapse of the contract X
continued to work in the vessel without a new contract. Michelin Asia Pacific Application Support Center v.
Sustained back injuries while he was doing his plumbing Ortiz
job. His conditioned worsened. Acting on his request he G.R. No. 189861, November 19, 2014
was repatriated in Manila. By: Bejasa, K
A company physician examined him. Bahia paid for his

rehabilitation and medications. The physician declared
him fit to work. HIpe sought a second opinion from Bar Question:
another doctor this time not from the company. The
X was employed by Z Corporation as Personnel Manager.
second doctor declared him as unfit for work.
Later on, Z Corporation informed X of the termination of
X filed a case for payment of permanent disability to his employment on the ground of redundancy.
work with the Labor Arbiter. X argued that he sustained Consequently, X filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
injuries in the course of his employment. Y argued that against Z Corporation. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed
he was repatriated not for medical reasons but due to the illegal dismissal complaint. Upon appeal, the NLRC
the termination of his contract. dismissed X’s appeal reasoning that the latter’s
Memorandum of Appeal was not accompanied by a
Can the court grant the petition for certiorari although certificate of non-forum shopping in violation of the
the petitioner was not able to establish his claim through NLRC Rules of Procedure. X then filed a Motion for
substantial evidence? Reconsideration but the NLRC denied such for filing
beyond the 10-day reglementary period to perfect the
same, in violation of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. X then
filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA
Suggested Answer:
alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in
No, the court cannot grant the petitioner for certiorari. dismissing his complaint.
The grant of the remedy of certiorari must be given only If you were the judge, how would you rule on X’s petition
when a petitioner can show that the court or quasi- for certiorari?
judicial authority gravely abused its discretion. Grave
abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by Suggested Answer:
reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of
which being so patent and gross as to amount to an If I were the judge, I would dismiss X’s petition for
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform certiorari.
the duty enjoined by or to act all in contemplation of law.
To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of
In labor disputes there is grave abuse of discretion when certiorari, petitioner must satisfactorily show that the
a decision of the NLRC are not supported by substantial court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the
evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a discretion conferred upon them. Grave abuse of
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious
conclusion. and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction . To be considered "grave," the discretionary
CA committed reversible error in granting X’s certiorari authority must be exercised in a despotic manner by
petition since the NLRC did not gravely abuse its reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so
discretion in dismissing the complaint for permanent patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
disability because X failed to establish his claim through duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined
substantial evidence. by or to act at all in contemplation of law.
Page 16
In this case, it is clear that the NLRC, in due observance properties had been rendered ineffective by the final and
of its own procedural rules, had amply justified its executory which disposed unconditionally and
dismissal of X’s appeal in view of his numerous absolutely the subject properties.
procedural infractions, namely: (a) his failure to attach to
his Memorandum of Appeal a certificate of non-forum Is Company Z correct? Decide.
shopping and; (b) his filing of a motion for
reconsideration was beyond the 10 day reglementary Suggested Answer:
period. Hence, there is no showing of grave abuse of
No. Company Z is not correct.
discretion committed by the NLRC in dismissing X’s
appeal.
As persons with their liens annotated, they stand to be
benefited or injured by any order relative to the
cancellation of annotations in the pertinent TCTs. In
Topic: Certiorari other words, they are as indispensable as Company Z
itself in the final disposition of the case for cancellation,
being one of the many lien holders.
Crisologo v JEWM
GR 196894, March 03, 2014 As indispensable parties, X and Y should have been
By: Calo, M. joined as defendants in the case pursuant to Section 7,
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Bar Question:
SEC. 7.Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. –
X and Y filed a collection case against Z, the owner of Parties in interest without whom no final determination
various properties including two (2) parcels of land can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs
covered by TCT Nos. 292597 and 292600 (subject or defendants. The reason behind this compulsory
properties), which were attached by various creditors. joinder of indispensable parties is the complete
the levies were annotated on the back of the said titles. determination of all possible issues, not only between
B, also filed a collection case against Z. The Trial court the parties themselves but also as regards other persons
rendered a decision based on the compromise who may be affected by the judgment.
agreement between Z and will transfer the properties in
favor of B, who later sold the properties to C and later To turn a blind eye to the said nullity and, in turn, rule as
sold it to Company Z to which the annotations remained. improper the recourse to Rule 65 by the lack of legal
X and Y prevailed in their collection case and scheduled a standing is to prolong the denial of due process to the
notice of sale of the properties of Z, which included the persons whose interests are indispensible to the final
parcel of lands now under the name of Company Z. To disposition of the case. It will only result in a protracted
protect its interest, JEWM filed a separate action for litigation as X and Y will be forced to rely on a petition for
cancellation of lien with prayer for the issuance of a the annulment of judgment before the CA, which may
preliminary injunction. X and Y questioned the authority again reach this Court.
of the court and Company Z argued that they are not
parties to the in the case. CA affirmed the trial court’s To prevent multiplicity of suits and to expedite the swift
ruling that the proceeding may proceed without them administration of justice, the CA should have applied
being impleaded, X and Y claim that there fundamental liberality by striking down the assailed orders despite the
right to due process was violated. Company Z asserts lack of legal standing on the part of X and Y to file the
that X and Y’s failure to file a motion to intervene, Rule 65 petition before it. Besides, this lacking
pleadings-in-intervention, appeal or annulment of requirement, of which X and Y were not even at fault, is
judgment, which were plain, speedy and adequate precisely the reason why this controversy arose. Petition
remedies then available to them, rendered recourse to filed before it and in not finding grave abuse of discretion
Rule 65 as improper; lacked the legal standing to file a on the part of RTC-Br. 14. Petition All told, the CA erred
Rule 65 petition since they were not impleaded in the in dismissing the amended is granted.
proceedings before the trial court and were not
indispensable parties since their rights over the
Page 17
Topic: Certiorari Is grave abuse of discretion present in the case?
Tesoro, et al. vs. Metro Manila Retreaders, et al.

G.R. NO. 171482 MARCH 12, 2014 Suggested Answer:
By: Demonteverde, R.
No, there is no grave abuse of discretion in this case.
The law provides that the purpose of certiorari is to

Bar Question: designed for correction of errors of jurisdiction, not
errors of Judgment.
Petitioners XX quit their jobs as salesmen and entered In the case at bat, there is no employer-employee
into separate Service Franchise Agreements (SFAs) with relationship. B’s SFAs created on their faces an
B for the operation of their respective franchises. Under arrangement that gave petitioners the privilege to
the SFAs, B would provide funding support to the operate and maintain B’s branches in the way of
petitioners subject to a regular or periodic liquidation of franchises, providing tire repair and retreading services,
their revolving funds. At first, XX managed and operated with petitioners earning profits based on the
their respective franchises without any problem. After a performance of their branches. When petitioners agreed
length of time, however, they began to default on their to operate B’s franchise branches in different parts of the
obligations to submit periodic liquidations of their country, they knew that this substantially changed their
operational expenses in relation to the revolving funds B former relationships.
provided them.
Consequently, B terminated their respective SFA. Thus, there is no grave abuse of discretion by the court
in rendering the said judgment.
Aggrieved, XX filed a complaint for constructive
dismissal, non-payment of wages, incentive pay, 13th
month pay and damages against B with the National Topic: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). XX contend that,
notwithstanding the execution of the SFAs, they Lanier vs People of the Philippines,
remained to be B’s employees, the SFAs being but a 719 SCRA 477
circumvention of their status as regular employees. By: Dy, I.
For its part, B pointed out that petitioners freely resigned

from their employment and decided to avail themselves
of the opportunity to be independent entrepreneurs Bar Question:
under the franchise scheme that B had. Thus, no
The police operatives conducted a test-buy at A’s
employer-employee relationship existed between XX
residence where they were able to purchase shabu and
and B.
marijuana from A. On the basis of the test-buy operation,
they were able to secure a search warrant from the RTC.
LA, NLRC and CA ruled that there is no employer-
Thereafter, A was placed under arrest. B, the assistant
employee relationship.
prosecutor filed an information charging A. A filed
It also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. a Motion to Quash the Information before the RTC but
Undaunted, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari the RTC denied the motion and remanded the case to the
under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) ascribing provincial prosecutor for preliminary investigation.
grave abuse of discretion. On July 29, 2005 the CA The prosecutor upheld the Information and directed the
rendered a Decision, dismissing the petition for lack of return of the records to the RTC for disposition.
merit. It also denied their motion for reconsideration on
A filed a petition for review before the DOJ. The Sec. of
February 7, 2006.
Justice favored the petitioner on the belief that the
evidences seized were planted. The secretary, in a
Page 18
Resolution, directed the prosecutor to withdraw the immediate compliance with the RTC ruling. Unable to get
Information before the RTC. RTC then granted the a favorable reply from SLU, the Olairez group filed, on the
Motion to Withdraw Information by the prosecutor. same day, a "Very Urgent Motion to Cite Defendants in
Contempt" setting the hearing of the motion for July 18,
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed to the Court of 2003. Meanwhile, SLU filed its Notice of Appeal before
Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the the RTC. Thereafter, the hearing of the motion to cite SLU
Resolution of the DOJ. The CA found probable cause to in contempt proceeded on the same day without any
sustain the petitioners’ indictment and reinstated the participation of SLU and its officials.
Information against A. CA nullified and set aside the DOJ
Resolution and the Order of the RTC. Is SLU guilty of contempt?
Did the Court of Appeals commit any error in reversing

the DOJ Resolution? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No. Indirect contempt is defined by and punished under

Suggested Answer: Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
No. The CA did not commit any reversible error. Section 3.Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
and hearing. — After a charge in writing has been filed,
It is a well settled rule, that once a criminal Complaint or and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
Information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court
dismissal, acquittal or conviction rests within the and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of
exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
trial court. The rule applies to a Motion of the public contempt:
prosecutor to dismiss the case even before or after the
arraignment of the accused. xxx
When the Secretary of Justice made a determination and (b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
concluded that the evidences were planted, he went into process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act
the merits of the defense and exceeded his jurisdiction. of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected
On the part of the RTC, it having acquired jurisdiction from any real property by the judgment or process of any
over the case, is not bound by the Resolution of the DOJ court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or
but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further induces another to enter into or upon such real property,
with the trial. While the Secretary’s ruling is persuasive, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the
it is not binding on courts. person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
xxx
Topic: Contempt In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the

offense. Thus, the good faith or lack of it, of the alleged
St Louis University V. Olairez contemnor is considered. Where the act complained of
G.R. No. 162299 March 26, 2014 is ambiguous or does not clearly show on its face that it
By: Elumbaring, J is contempt, and is one which, if the party is acting in
good faith, is within his rights, the presence or absence
of a contumacious intent is, in some instances, held to be
determinative of its character. A person should not be
Bar Question:
condemned for contempt where he contends for what
On July 16, 2003, the RTC rendered a decision declaring he believes to be right and in good faith institutes
the Olairez group as graduates of the College of proceedings for the purpose, however erroneous may be
Medicine, SLU. The next day or, on July 17, 2003, the his conclusion as to his rights. To constitute contempt,
Olairez group trooped to SLU and insisted on its the act must be done willfully and for an illegitimate or
Page 19
improper purpose. preliminary prohibitory injunction. Judge R issued an ex-

parte 72 hour TRO on June 3, 2011 and was extended to
The supposed inaction of the SLU and its officials when 20 days on June 7, 2011 and subsequently issued a writ
the Olairez group visited the school on July 17, 2003 to for preliminary prohibitory injunction. PAGCOR, without
demand their compliance with the decision was not seeking a motion for reconsideration of the said order,
borne out of a contumacious conduct tending, directly or directly filed with the SC certiorari petitions pleading
indirectly, to hinder the implementation of a judgment. transcendental importance of the issues.
A conduct, to be contumacious, implies willfulness, bad
faith or with deliberate intent to cause injustice, which is Are the acts of PAGCOR proper?
clearly not the case here. On the contrary, SLU was well
within its rights to appeal the decision and not
immediately heed the demand of the Olairez group. Suggested Answer:
Therefore, they were not guilty of contempt. No, it was not proper. PAGCOR is not justified in failing
to file a requisite motion for reconsideration, and to
observe the hierarchy of courts.
In a case decided, the SC ruled that a Motion for

Reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing
of a Petition for Certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an
opportunity for the court to correct any actual or
perceived error attributed to it by re-examination of the
Topic: Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus legal and factual circumstances of the case. To grant an
exception to the rule, the issue must be of
PAGCOR vs. Thunderbird Philippines Hotels and transcendental importance to justify its action of
Resorts, Inc. skipping the hierarchy of courts
G.R. No. 197942-43, 199528, March 26, 2014
By: Eupena, R. In this case, PAGCOR’s argument that the issue is of
transcendental importance does not hold water. The
petitions deal with the manner PAGCOR has exercised its
Bar Question: licensing and regulatory powers over the respondent
casino operator. There are no special and important
PAGCOR granted T an authority to operate (ATO) a casino circumstances that would allow a direct recourse to this
for 6-months but was subsequently granted a permanent court.
ATO, co-terminus with PAGCOR’s franchise, or up to July
11, 2008 but is extendible if and when PAGCOR’s
authority to issue licenses is extended. With that passage Topic: Injunction
of the law extending PAGCOR’s franchise, T sought the
formal extension of their ATO’s to be made co-terminus Republic, Represented by the National Irrigation
with PAGCOR’s new franchise. PAGCOR send T separate Administration vs. Spouses Lazo
blank renewal ATO’s bearing a period of only six months GR 195594 September 29, 2014
retroactive to July 12, 2008. Insisting that the T’s ATOs By: Jongoy, K.
had expired on August 6, 2009 without a renewal,
PAGCOR served notice upon the respondents to cease
their casino operations, as well as gave them until June Bar Question:
3, 2011 to signify their unconditional acceptance of its
The Federal Republic of the Philippines (FRP) made an
new terms of reference for their new licenses, or
irrigation project in Ilocos City. Before the start of the
“PAGCOR will have no choice but to initiate cessation
project, the FRP expropriated the land of Mr. Marcos.
proceedings.” T filed a complaint with the RTC for
Mr. Marcos is currently developing his land as a
specific performance with application for TRO and writ of
residential subdivision. Mr. Marcos hired Dr. Luis Singson
Page 20
to conduct a geohazard study on the irrigation project. Principle: Forcible entry is proper when one employs
The study found that the project will have negative force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to deprive
environmental effects. The city council of Ilocos issued a another of physical possession of real property.
resolution recommending the study and to stop the
ongoing construction of the project. Mr. Marcos then The subject property is registered in the name of X, long
filed a temporary restraining order for the purpose of deceased ascendant of all the parties. Of all X’s children,
stopping the construction. FRP assailed RA 8975 which only Z occupied the subject property, living at the
prohibits the lower courts from issuance of TRO against ancestral house.
government projects. RTC issued and granted the TRO.
After Z’s death, her purported will, a holographic will,
Was the issuance and grant of TRO valid? was probated. In the will, Z, asserting ownership, devised
the subject property to Y, her nephew. Y effected the
demolition of the ancestral house, intending to use the
Suggested Answer: subject property for other purposes.
NO, the issuance and grant of the temporary restraining A,B and C, who resided at portions of Lot No. 2476 that
order (TRO) was not valid. surround the subject property on which the ancestral
house previously stood, erected a fence on the
RA 8975 prohibits the lower courts from issuing surrounding portion, barricaded its frontage, and put up
restraining order and preliminary injunctions against the a sign thereat, effectively dispossessing Y of the
government to ensure the expeditious and efficient property.
implementation and completion of governmental
infrastructure projects. However, this admits of an Y’S filed the complaint for forcible entry against A, B and
exception when the matter is of extreme urgency C.
involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a If you were the judge would you grant the complaint?
temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and
irreparable injury will arise.
Suggested Answer:
In the case at bar, the TRO filed by Mr. Marcos does not
fall within the exception provided by RA 8975. Mr. Yes. I will grant the complaint.
Marcos filed the TRO based on the hazard study and City
Council resolution which failed to demonstrate that Under the rules, Forcible entry is when one employs
there is a constitutional issue or if there is such, a force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to deprive
constitutional issue of extreme urgency. another of physical possession of real property.
Hence, the TRO issued by the RTC is not valid. It does not In the instant case, there was unlawful dispossession.
fall within the exception provided by RA 8975, thus, it is The whole of Lot No. 2476 including the portion now
in contravention of the prohibition against the lower litigated is, owing to the fact that it has remained
courts from issuance of res. registered in the name of X who is the common ancestor
of both parties herein, co-owned property. Y cannot be
dispossessed of such area, not only by virtue of Z
Topic: Forcible Entry bequeathal in his favor but also because of his own right
of possession that comes from his co- ownership of the
Teodoro Vs Espino property.
GR 189248
By: Juarez, J. Therefore, the heirs substituting Y in this suit, should be
restored in the lawful possession of the disputed area.
Bar Question:
Topic: Certiorari
Page 21
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party

People vs Espinosa favored by the suspension of the rules; 7. a lack of any
721 SCRA 53 showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
Surname: Lim, E. dilatory; 8. the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby; 9. fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence without appellant’s fault; 10. peculiar legal
and equitable circumstances attendant to each case;
Bar Question:
11. in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
E, C and D were accused of killing R. The trial court on 12. importance of the issues involved; and 13. exercise of
August 12, 2010 dismissed the case the against E for sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant
insufficiency of evidence. P filed a motion for circumstances.
reconsideration but it was denied by the court on
October 7, 2010. Petitioner P, filed a petition for review
under rule 65 and pass the draft of its petition to the
office of the solicitor general on Nov. 30, 2010. It was
only on Dec. 3, 2010 when the draft of the petition
arrived to the office of the solicitor general, and was
assigned on Dec. 8, 2010 to the handling solicitors.
Can the period to file a petition for review be extended

beyond the 60 day reglementary period? TOPIC: Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
TENAZASVS R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT

720 SCRA 467
Suggested Answer: By: Lleve, A.
Yes, the 60 day reglementary period to file a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 65 may be extended. The
Bar Question:
Supreme Court held that the 60 day reglementary period
to file a petition for review on certiorari may be extended A, B and C are taxi drivers of Villegas Taxi Transport
when the failure to file within the required period is not Company (Taxi Operator) who filed a complaint for illegal
entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the dismissal against the Taxi operator. The Taxi Operator
party favored by the suspension of the rules. In the case denied the fact they were illegally dismissed. In fact, both
at bar, P were able to send promptly their draft of the A and B failed to report back to work for no apparent
petition on Nov. 30, 2010. It was only that the draft reason. The Taxi Operator even admitted that A and B
arrived to the office of the solicitor general on Dec. 3, were employees in the company. However, the Taxi
2010, and was assigned to the handling solicitor only on Operator denied the employment of C.
Dec. 8, 2010.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Taxi Operator
Principle
saying that there was no illegal dismissal. The National
The 60-day period may be extended under any of these Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the
circumstances: appealed decision. It premised its conclusion on the
pieces of evidence submitted by A, B and C which might
1. most persuasive and weighty reasons; 2. to relieve a have been overlooked by the Labor Arbiter. On appeal,
litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; 3. good It ruled that A and B were employees of the company,
faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying but ruled otherwise in the case of C for failing to establish
within a reasonable time from the time of the default; his relationship with the company. It also deleted the
4.the existence of special or compelling circumstances; award of separation pay and ordered for reinstatement
5. the merits of the case; 6. a cause not entirely of A and B.
Page 22
For having found to be engaged in illegal international

Dissatisfied, A, B and C filed a petition for certiorari. Will simple resale (ISR) and after obtaining several computers
the petition prosper? as evidence, the respondents were charged with theft in
the RTC. The respondent questions the validity of the
search warrant and filed for an issuance of subpoena
ducestecum but was denied by the RTC which prompted
Suggested Answer: the respondents to file for a motion for reconsideration
but was denied again and the respondents notified on
No, the petition will not prosper.
October 18, 2002. On January 20, 2003, a petition for
certiorari under rule 65 was filed by the respondent
Based on jurisprudence, Judicial review of decisions of
assailing the order of the RTC. The RTC denied the
the NLRC via petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as a
petition arguing that the respondents failed to file the
general rule, is confined only to issues of lack or excess
petition within 60 days after the denial of the motion for
of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part
reconsideration, but was reversed by the Court of
of the NLRC. The Court of Appeals does not assess and
Appeals prompting the petitioner to file this petition
weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the LA and
assailing the reversal by the CA.
the NLRC based their conclusions. The issue is limited to
the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted
Did the Court of appeals erred giving due course to and
without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave
reversing the petition?
abuse of discretion in rendering the resolution, except if
the findings of the NLRC are not supported by substantial
evidence. Suggested Answer:
In this case, the sufficiency of evidence presented to the Yes, the CA erred in reversing the decision.
LA and NLRC to which both agencies based its decisions
is not subject to the assessment of the Court of Appeals, Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a
hence, not subject for review under Rule 65 failing to special civil action for certiorari should be instituted 60
qualify as grave abuse of discretion. days from notice of judgment, order, or resolution, or
from the notice of denial of the motion for
Principle: reconsideration of the judgment, order, or resolution
Judicial review of decisions of the NLRC via petition for being assailed.
certiorari under Rule 65, as a general rule, is confined
only to issues of lack or excess of jurisdiction and grave In this case, the respondents were notified of the denial
abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRCin rendering of their motion for reconsideration on October 18, 2002
the resolution, except if the findings of the NLRC are not which gives them until December 17, 2002 within which
supported by substantial evidence. to file a petition for certiorari with the CA.
The 60 day limitation may be relaxed only for the most

persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases which
TOPIC: Certiorari, Period of Filing must be sufficiently shown by the party invoking it, in
which the respondents failed to do so.
PLDT vs. OCAMPO

G.R. No. 163999, July 09, 2014 Topic: Certiorari Case
By: Santiago, F.
ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURE VS. CHIONGBIAN
G.R. No.197530, July 9, 2014
Bar Question: By: Silawan, D.
Bar Question:
Page 23
Company A, B and C entered into an agreement whereby Topic: Certiorari Case

Company A and B would transfer various inventories
assets to Company C in exchange for Company C’s shares
of stock. Resulting to a merged company named Candelaria v. RTC Branch 42 City of San Fernando
Company D. Pampanga, 730 SCRA 1
By: Sultan, Joharey L.
Pursuant to such agreement, Company C will acquire the
inventories of Company B, the total aggregate amount
shall not exceed 400million. Later on, the inventories
were assessed to have a value of 558million. Thus, Bar Question:
Company C paid the amount of 400million plus shares of
stock from Company D. However, even with such An alleged buy-bust operation conducted whereby the P
payment, there was still a balance. So company B sent were arrested at the corner of Gueco St. and MacArthur
demand letters for the return of excess inventories. Highway, Balibago, Angeles City for delivering, with the
intention to sell, five cases of counterfeit Fundador
Claims still not having satisfied, Company B filed a Brandy. P was formally charged in Information in
complaint against Company C and D before the RTC of violation of Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
Cebu. Company C and D filed a motion to dismiss but was After they were arraigned and had pleaded not guilty to
denied. Hence, they filed a petition for review under Rule the charge. P filed a Motion to Suppress/Exclude
45. Evidence based on inadmissibility of evidence. They
contended that the evidence the prosecution intended
Is the petition proper? to present were obtained in violation of their
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. The RTC denies their Motion contending that
Suggested Answer: the motion was anchored on P’s illegal arrest and any
objection to an arrest must be made before an accused
No. It is elementary that an appeal may only be taken
enters his plea on arraignment.
from a judgment or final order that completely disposes
of the case. As such, no appeal may be taken from an This prompted the P to file petition for Certiorari filed
interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is not under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground that
appealable until after the rendition of the judgment on the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
the merits for a contrary rule would delay the to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
administration of justice and unduly burden the courts.
Is the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
In this case, Company C and D filed a petition for denying the motion?
certiorari under Rule 45 which is not allowed considering
the fact that the order they assailed from was only an
interlocutory order. However, under the jurisprudence,
Suggested Answer:
in many instances, the Court has treated a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 as a petition for No. The RTC did not committed grave abuse of discretion
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, such as in in denying there motion.
cases where the subject of the recourse was one of
jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a party seeking the
a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack writ whether for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus,
or excess of jurisdiction. must be able to show that his or her resort to such
extraordinary remedy is justified by the absence of an
Thus, the petition is not proper appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. "[H]e must allege in his petition
and establish facts to show that any other existing
Page 24
remedy is not speedy or adequate remedy. When this case was called for pre-trial conference, co-
plaintiff Sandy Ang failed to appear despite notice, thus,
In the case at bar, the petitioner fails to allege that there this case is dismissed, insofar as he is concerned.
is neither appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate Accordingly, defendant Absolute Management Corp.
remedy in the ordinary course of law as to justify resort adduced evidence ex parte in support of its counterclaim
to certiorari. Assuming the assailed motion to be against co-plaintiff Sandy Ang.
erroneous, the mistake is an error in judgment which is
beyond the ambit of certiorari. And even assuming that As a result thereof, the trial court, upon motion of the
petitioners’ resort of certiorari proper, the petition must private respondent, declared petitioner in default.
still be dismissed for their failure to show that the RTC Accordingly, the trial court allowed private respondent
acted in grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack of to present evidence ex-parte.
jurisdiction. "Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious The trial court denied petitioner’s motion to lift the order
and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the of default,
public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess
or lack of jurisdiction. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA
Therefore, the petition for certiorari under rule 65 is alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the aforestated Orders. In its
untenable.
assailed decision, the CA reversed the trial court’s ruling
Topic: Certiorari that respondent’s counsel cannot validly represent
respondent due to “the failure on the part of the
ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. representative of respondent to present a Secretary’s
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Certificate and Special Power of Attorney authorizing her
G.R. No. 190277, July 23, 2014 to represent [respondent] during the pre-trial stage. The
By: Abastillas, T. CA ruled that the RTC’s determination holding that
respondent’s counsel cannot validly represent
respondent due to lack of authorization lacks merit.
Bar Question:
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Sherwood Holdings Corporation and Spouses Sandy Ang Hence, this petition.
and Arlene Ang filed a case for sum of money against
private respondent Absolute Management Corporation Suggested Answer:
before the Regional Trial Court. Private respondent filed
its answer and incorporated a third-party complaint We grant the petition.
against petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company. A petition for certiorari may be filed if the trial court
declared the defendant in default with grave abuse of
The trial court set the case for pre-trial. When the discretion. However, an act of a court or tribunal can
counsels of the parties were asked by the trial court to only be considered to be tainted with grave abuse of
produce their respective authorizations to appear at the discretion when such act is done in a capricious or
said hearing, counsel for petitioner manifested that her whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack
authority to appear for petitioner was submitted by of jurisdiction. The court a quo did not commit such
them at the first pre-trial hearing way back in 2004.When grave abuse of discretion in the case at bar.
respondent’s counsel was given the chance to go over
the records of the court a quo to look for the Secretary’s With respect to the third-party complaint of Absolute
Certificate and the SPA that she allegedly submitted in Management Corp., against third-party defendant
2004, these documents could not be found from the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company whose counsel
records of the case. failed to present a Secretary’s Certificate and Special
Power of Attorney authorizing her to represent said bank
in today’s pre-trial, said third-party plaintiff is hereby
Page 25
allowed to present evidence ex parte pursuant to the of the COMELEC and COA. The Supreme Court had
provisions of Sec. 5, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil interpreted the provision to limit the remedy of certiorari
Procedure. against final orders, rulings and decisions of the
COMELEC en banc rendered in the exercise of its
Indubitably, the appellate court ruled on the capacity of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Certiorari will not
respondent’s counsel to represent it as its lawyer, or as generally lie against an order, ruling, or decision of a
its attorney, in the court a quo. Perforce, it ruled that the COMELEC division for being premature, taking into
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it account the availability of the plain, speedy and
declared that respondent’s counsel did not have the adequate remedy of a motion for reconsideration. A
authority to represent it. We are constrained to disagree party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by a
with this ruling. The crux of this controversy is whether Division of the COMELEC in an election protest may not
respondent’s counsel had the authority to represent directly assail the said order in this Court through a
respondent in her capacity as its representative during special civil action for certiorari. The remedy is to seek
the subject pre-trial, and not in her capacity as its the review of the interlocutory order during the appeal
counsel. Presiding from the foregoing disquisitions, we of the decision of the Division in due course
agree with the court a quo that respondent’s counsel did
not have the proper authority. In this case, the assailed order is an interlocutory order
issued by the COMELEC First Division and not a final
order of the COMELEC En Banc. It is not a valid subject
matter for a petition for certiorari under Rule 64.
Thus, the said action is premature and not proper.

Topic: Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Topic: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
VILLAROSA VS. FESTIN
G.R. No. 212953, August 05, 2014 Olongapo City vs. Subic Water and Sewerage
By: Aguilando, M.L SCRA 132 August 06, 2014
By: Ambrosio, S.
Bar Question:
Bar Question:
V and F are rival candidates for the mayoralty post in
Mindoro. F was proclaimed the victor. V then filed a
City of Maligaya filed a complaint for sum of money and
Petition for Protest Ad Cautelam before the RTC alleging
damages against Y Water District. It alleged that Y failed
irregularities in the conduct of elections. The RTC
to pay its electricity bills to petitioner and remit its
rendered a decision declaring the proclamation of F void.
payment under the contract to pay, pursuant to Y’s
Thus, he filed a Petition for Certiorari with injunctive
acquisition of petitioner’s water system. Y posed a
relief with the COMELEC. The COMELEC granted the
counterclaim against petitioner for unpaid water bills.
relief prayed for enjoining the RTC Decision’s execution
SW took over Y’s water operations in City of Maligaya. To
pending appeal. V filed an urgent motion for the quashal
settle their money claims they entered into a
of the issued injunction which was denied by the
compromise agreement. Trial court approved the
COMELEC First Division. He then filed a Petition for
compromise agreement. City of Maligaya and Y executed
Certiorari under Rule 64.
a Deed of Assignment. Y assigned all of its rights in the
Is the action of V proper? JVA in favor of the Y.
Suggested Answer: City filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of

execution. It was granted but did not issue the
No, the action of V is not proper. corresponding writ of execution. The City through its
counsel prayed again for the issuance of a writ of
Sec. 1, Rule 64 of the Rules of Civil Procedure pertains to
execution against Y. Atty. AA filed a manifestation
the review of judgments and final orders or resolutions
alleging that Y had already been dissolved and that SW is
Page 26
now the former Y Water District. SW also filed a Hence, a petition for certioraris not a proper remedy.
manifestation that Y is not SW. It indicated that Y was
only a 10% shareholder of SW; and that its 10% share was
already transferred to City of Maligaya pursuant to the
Deed of Assignment. SW filed a special appearance with Topic: Grave Abuse of Discretion
motion. The trial court denied it. SW then filed a petition
for certiorari with the CA, imputing grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to OSG Ship Management Manila V. Pellazar
RTC. G.R. No. 198367, August 6, 2014
By: Arrabis, C.
Is the petition for certiorari a proper remedy?
Bar Question:
P was an oiler in the vessel of M/T Delphina filed for total

Suggested Answer: disability benefits and damages against OSG. The
company-designated physician gave Pa Grade 10
No, it is not a proper remedy. disability ‘for loss of grasping power for large objects
between fingers and palm of one hand. P consulted
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate only another physician of his choice and Dr. S who diagnosed
if there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate him with ‘loss of grasping power of 5th finger, loss of
remedy in the ordinary course of law available to the opposition between finger and thumb and ankylosis of
aggrieved party. As we have distinctly explained in the the 5th finger’ ad certified that he was ‘permanently unfit
case of Pasiona v. Court of Appeals: for any sea duty.
OSG argued that P is not entitled compensation higher

The aggrieved party is proscribed from assailing a than grade 10 disability rating. The Labor Arbiter
decision or final order of the CA viaRule 65 because such awarded P permanent total disability. But the NLRC
recourse is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy modified LA’s decision. It ruled that P Is only entitled to
and adequate remedy in the course of law. In this an Grade 10 disability rating under POEA Standard
case, petitioner had an adequate remedy, namely, a Employment Contract.
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. A petition for review on certiorari, not a P seeks relief in CA through petition for Certiorari. CA
special civil action for certiorari was, therefore, the granted the petition and reversed the ruling of NLRC and
correct remedy.Settled is the rule that where appeal is reinstated the ruling of LA.
available to the aggrieved party, the special civil action
for certiorari will not be entertained – remedies of Is the CA correct in reversing the decision of NLRC?
appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not
alternative or successive. Hence, certiorari is not and
cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially if one's Suggested Answer:
own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy
occasioned such loss or lapse. No. The CA has limited scope of reviewing the NLRC
decision because of the intrinsic limitation of the sole
Since the CA’s pronouncement completely disposed of available remedy itself. A writ of certiorari is a remedy
the case and the issues raised by the parties, it was the that lies only to correct acts rendered without
proper subject of a Rule 45 petition. It was already a final jurisdiction in excess in excess of jurisdiction, or with
order that resolved the subject matter in its entirety, grave abuse of discretion and not mere errors of
leaving nothing else to be done. With the lapse of the judgment. For emphasis therefore, when a petition for
prescribed period for appeal without an action from the certiorari is filed, the judicial inquiry should be limited to
petitioner, the present petition for certiorari– a mere issue of whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of
replacement –must be dismissed. discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction
Page 27
and not whether the NLRC ruling is intrinsically correct or

not.
Suggested Answer:
The NLRC mere disagreement with the LA, however,
does not give rise to grave abuse of discretion, unless the No, the resort to certiorari was not timely.
NLRC’s contrary conclusion had no basis in fact and law.
In the present case, the NLRC ruling was actually based Section 4 of Rule 65 provides that the petition shall be
on extensive evaluation and treatment of P’s medical filed not later than sixty (60) daysfrom notice of
condition by the company doctors. Under Rule 65 judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
petition, the CA does not determine which of the reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such
conflicting finding assessment should be preferred; but motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall
rather, whether in deciding to uphold one over the other, be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
the NLRC exceed the bounds of its jurisdiction or
committed grave abuse of discretion abuse of discretion. As the rule indicates, the 60-day period starts to run from
Therefore, the CA determination is incorrect. the date petitioner receives the assailed judgment, final
order or resolution, or the denial of the motion for
reconsideration or new trial timely filed, whether such
motion is required or not. To establish the timeliness of
the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt of the
assailed judgment, final order or resolution or the denial
of the motion for reconsideration or new trial must be
stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for
certiorari must be dismissed. There are three essential
Topic: Certiorari dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari
brought under Rule 65. First, the date when notice of the
judgment or final order or resolution was received;
Vinuya vs Romulo second, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration
732 SCRA 595 was filed; and third, when notice of the denial thereof
By: Bautista, Sheryl Yu was received. Failure of petitioner to comply with this
Bar Question: requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
of the petition. Substantial compliance will not suffice in
In 1998, victims of the “comfort women system” a matter involving strict observance with the Rules.
approached the Executive Department through the
Department of Justice in order to request assistance to Thus, the petition alone in the year 1998 only as the time
file a claim against the Japanese officials and military when petitioners approached the Department of Justice
officers who ordered the establishment of “comfort for assistance, but does not specifically state when they
women” stations in the Philippines. Subsequently, the received the denial of their request for assistance
Executive Department ignored their request and refused warranted the outright dismissal of the petition. Even
to file a claim against the said Japanese officials and assuming that petitioners received the notice of the
military. Thereafter, said victims approached the denial of their request for assistance in 1998, their filing
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), Department of of the petition only on March 8, 2004 was still way
Justice (DOJ) and Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) but beyond the 60-day period. Only the most compelling
were similarly disregarded. reasons could justify the Court’s acts of disregarding and
lifting the strictures of the rule on the period.
Aggrieved on the denial of their request, on May 8, 2004,
petitioners file a petition for certiorari claiming that the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary
committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to Topic: Mandamus
espouse the claims of Filipina comfort women.
Jardeleza vs Sereno
Does the certiorari timely filed?
Page 28
G.R. No. 213181 August 19, 2014 In the case at bar, though JBC is not exercising judicial or
By: Bulanon, J. quasi-judicial functions, a petitioner for certiorari under
rule 65 can still be availed against them as part of the
Judicial Power of the courts.
Bar Question:
J was not included on the list for recommendation for the

position of Associate Justice, due to his allegedly dubious
integrity. He answered that he would defend himself
provided that due process will be observed, but his
request was denied. Hence, J filed for certiorari and
mandamus with prayer for TRO to compel the JBC to
include him in the list on the grounds that the JBC and CJ-
Sacted with grave abuse of discretion in excluding him,
despite having garnered a sufficient number of votes to
qualify for the position. JBC opposed the petition in two Topic: Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
points; (1) Mandamus is not available against JBC; (2)
Certiorari under Rule 65 is not available against JBC as
they are not exercising quasi-judicial functions. Manuel Jimenez vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014
Decide on the two contentions of JBC. By: Capao, H.
Suggested Answer: Bar Question:
1. Yes, JBC is correct; the writ of mandamus is an A confessed his participation in the killing of X and
improper remedy in this case. naming B, C, D, E, and F, as his conspirators. B, et. al., and
A were charged of murder for the killing of X. A filed a
Mandamus lies to compel the performance, when motion for his discharge as accused pursuant to the
refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to compel the witness protection program. The RTC granted the motion
performance of a discretionary duty. Mandamus will not to discharge filed by A following the requirements of
issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
public officer where the law imposes upon said public Procedure for the discharge of an accused as a state
officer the right and duty to exercise his judgment in witness. B filed a petition for certiorari against the RTC.
reference to any matter in which he is required to act.
Did the RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting the
JBC’s duty to nominate is discretionary and it may not be motion filed by A?
compelled to do something. Having the discretion, a
mandamus cannot be filed against them to compel them
to include J in the list.
Suggested Answer:
No, the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in

2. No, JBC is not correct. granting the motion filed by A.
Certiorari is a proper remedy to question the act of any In settled in jurisprudence that a petition
branch or instrumentality of the government on the for certiorari against a court which has jurisdiction over a
ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is clear
excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of and patent. The burden is on the part of the petitioner to
the government, even if the latter does not exercise prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
Page 29
the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned

order. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; the abuse Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available in
must be grave. Jurisprudence has defined "grave abuse extraordinary cases where a tribunal, board or officer,
of discretion" as the capricious and whimsical exercise of among others, completely acted without jurisdiction. A
judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject
of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty matter is void. While errors of judgment are correctible
enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an by appeal, errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by
arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or certiorari.
hostility.
The procedure for appeals to the OP is governed by
In the case at bar, the prosecution had presented clear,
Administrative Order No. 18 which provides that "a
satisfactory and convincing evidence showing
decision or order issued by a department or agency need
compliance with the requisites under Section 17, Rule
not be appealed to the Office of the President when
119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
there is a special law that provides for a different mode
Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of of appeal." In this case, a special law, RA 7394,likewise
discretion in granting the motion to discharge A as a state expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from
witness. decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition for
certiorari with the "proper court." Hence, B should have
elevated the case directly to the CA through a petition
for certiorari.
Considering that the OP had no jurisdiction to entertain
private respondent’s appeal, certiorari lies to correct
Moran, Jr., vs. Office of The President such jurisdictional error. In filing a petition for certiorari
G.R. No. 192957 September 29, 2014 before the CA raising the issue of the OP’s lack of
By: Casanares, A. jurisdiction, thus availed of the proper remedy.
Bar Question:
Topic: Foreclosure Of Real Estate Mortgage
A filed with the Consumer Arbitration Office (CAO) a
complaint against B for the product imperfections of a
BMW car which it sold to A pursuant to RA 7394.CAO 680 Home Appliances, Inc vs. CA
rendered a decision in favor of A. As a DTI administrative G.R. No. 206599, September 29, 2014
case, B appealed to the Secretary of DTI however it was By: De las llagas, D.
dismissed then B filed an appeal with the Office of the
President (OP). The OP granted the appeal, reversed the Bar Question:
DTI Secretary’s Resolution, and dismissed the complaint.
A then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA and XYZ Corporation consolidated its ownership after ABC
alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the OP. CA Homes failed to redeem the property which was
dismissed the petition for certiorari that it was a wrong foreclosed previously. A new certificate of title was
mode of appeal. issued in FSAMI’s name. An application for a writ of
possession was issued in favor of XYZ Corporation; the
Is the action for certiorari before the CA the proper writ, as well as the notice to vacate, were issued. As the
remedy? current occupant of the property, respondent W filed a
motion to intervene in the case, claiming that it
possessed the property as lessee of ABC Homes. ABC
Homes filed a petition to cancel the writ but was denied
Suggested Answer: by the trial court for being prematurely filed. But the CA
affirmed the trial court’s ruling for although a writ of
Yes, the action is the proper remedy.
Page 30
possession was issued the property remained in the Bar Question:

possession of W. Hence, the 30-day period to file a
petition to cancel a writ under Act No. 3135 has not yet Mr. Wong is a Chinese national who immigrated to the
commenced. To question the ruling of the CA, ABC Philippines and subsequently acquired a permanent
Homes filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the resident status. Mr. Wang filed a case against Mr. Wong
Rules of Court. in the Bureau of Immigration (BOI) because the latter had
misrepresented in his driver’s license that he was a
Is the action filed by ABC Homes is proper? Filipino citizen. Subsequently, the BOI Board of
Commissioners ordered his deportation on the grounds
Suggested Answer: of (a) illegal use of alias which appeared in the driver’s
license application; and (b) misrepresenting himself as a
No, the action filed by ABC Homes is not proper.
Filipino citizen in the same application in violation of RA
6085 or the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940.
Under Section 8 of Act no. 3135 allows a judgment Mr. Wong filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
debtor to file a petition for cancellation of the writ of alleging grave abuse of discretion. Will the petition
possession within 30 days after the purchaser obtained prosper?
possession of the subject property. The law is clear that
the purchaser must be first placed in possession of the
mortgaged property pending proceedings assailing the
issuance of the writ of possession. But this rule is Suggested Answer:
applicable only during the redemption period. Section 8
No, the petition will not prosper.
of Act No. 3135 finds no application when the
redemption period has expired without the debtor
Based on jurisprudence, in a special civil action
exercising his right, and the purchaser in the foreclosure
for certiorari, the petitioner carries the burden to prove
sale has already consolidated his ownership over the
that the respondent tribunal committed grave abuse of
property and moved for the issuance of the writ of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
possession.
issuing the impugned order. Grave abuse of discretion
means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
In the case at hand, ABC Homes cannot avail of the passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent
remedy under Section 8 of Act No. 3135 not because of judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or
W’s continued possession of the property that prevented virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act
XYZ Corporation from taking over despite having a writ in contemplation of law, such as when such judge,
of possession issued in its favor but because the petition tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
for cancellation was filed beyond the one-year powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to
redemption period and ownership of the property has be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
already been transferred to the purchaser.
Further, courts will not interfere in matters which are
addressed to the sound discretion of government
agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities
Therefore, ABC Homes action is not proper.
coming under the special technical knowledge and
training of such agencies. By reason of the special
knowledge and expertise of administrative departments
Topic: Certiorari over matters falling within their jurisdiction, they are in a
better position to pass judgment thereon and their
Tze Sun Wong vs Kenny Wong findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded
743 SCRA 567 respect, if not finality, by the courts.
By: Dimol, C.
Page 31
In this case, the BOI did not act with grave abuse of Suggested Answer:
discretion in deporting Mr. Wong. The BOI is the best
body that would determine if there has been violation of No, the action for certiorari is not the proper remedy.
the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 as in this case is
misrepresentation which would warrant deportation. As a rule, a Voluntary Arbitrator’s award or decision shall
The court finds great respect on their findings by reason be appealed before the Court of Appeals within 10 days
of the special knowledge and expertise therein hence from receipt of the award or decision. Should the
such decision cannot be said to be in grave abuse of aggrieved party choose to file a motion for
discretion. reconsideration with the Voluntary Arbitrator the
motion must be filed within the same 10-day period
Principle: since a motion for reconsideration is filed "within the
Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed period for taking an appeal. A petition for certiorari is a
to the sound discretion of government agencies special civil action "adopted to correct errors of
entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under jurisdiction committed by the lower court or quasi-
the special technical knowledge and training of such judicial agency, or when there is grave abuse of
agencies by reason of the special knowledge and discretion on the part of such court or agency amounting
expertise of administrative departments over matters to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An extraordinary remedy
falling within their jurisdiction. a petition for certiorari may be filed only if appeal is not
available. If appeal is available, an appeal must be taken
even if the ground relied upon is grave abuse of
discretion. As an exception to the rule, this court has
Topic: Certiorari allowed petitions for certiorari to be filed in lieu of an
appeal "(a) when the public welfare and the
Philippine Electric Corporation vs. CA advancement of public policy dictate; (b) when the
744 SCRA 361 broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs
By: Fabe, J. issued are null; and (d) when the questioned order
amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
Bar Question: Thus, the present case does not fall to any of the
exceptions. There being no appeal seasonably filed in this
X is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture case, Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision became final and
and repairs of high voltage transformers. XWU (X executory after 10 calendar days from X’s receipt of the
Worker’s Union) is a legitimate labor organization and resolution denying its motion. Hence, Voluntary
the exclusive bargaining representative of X’s rank-and- Arbitrator’s decision is already beyond the purview of
file employees. Claiming that X failed to follow the steps this Court to act upon.
in increasing the basic salary in case of promotion as
enunciated in Article X, Section 4 collective bargaining Hence, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby
agreement, XWU submitted the grievance to the denied being an improper remedy.
grievance machinery. The parties filed a submission
agreement with the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board, and designated Mr. Y as Voluntary Arbitrator. The
latter ruled that X violated the collective bargaining Topic: Prohibition and Mandamus
agreement. X, then filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 with the CA which was dismissed for lack of Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. vs Robredo,
merit. Thus, X filed a petition for certiorari with the SC. et al 730 SCRA 322 - July 22, 2014
By: Gala, L.
Is the action for certiorari proper?
Bar Question:
Page 32
The members of X occupied parcels of land in the cities

of San Juan, Navotas and Quezon. Y sent the members of In the case at bar, the acts complained of are beyond the
X notices of eviction and demolition pursuant to Section scope of a petition for prohibition and mandamus. The
28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 in order to give way to the use of the permissive word "may" implies that the public
implementation and construction of infrastructure respondents have discretion when their duty to execute
projects in the areas illegally occupied by the petitioners. evictions and/or demolitions shall be performed. Where
Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 authorize evictions and the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from
demolitions without any court order when persons or ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
entities occupy areas where government infrastructure applied without attempted interpretation.
projects with available funding are about to be
implemented.
Thus, the members of X wrongly availed themselves of a
The members of X directly filed a petition for prohibition petition for prohibition and mandamus.
and mandamus before the Court, seeking to compel Y to
first secure an eviction and/or demolition order from the
court prior to their implementation of Section 28 (a) and
(b) of RA 7279. The members of X argued that they have
Topic: Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus
no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.Y, on the other hand, prays for the outright
Araullo vs Aquino III
dismissal of the petition for its serious procedural defects
728 SCRA 1
since the members of X incorrectly availed of a petition
By: Gimang, M.
for prohibition and mandamus in assailing the
constitutionality of Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279.Is it
correct for the members of X to avail of the petition for
Bar Question:
prohibition and mandamus?
On a privilege speech made by Senator JE, he revealed
Suggested Answer: that some senators, including himself, had been given an
additional 50 million pesos each as an “incentive” for
No, the members of X wrongly availed themselves of a
voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice C.
petition for prohibition and mandamus.
Responding to such revelation, Secretary A issued a
public statement explaining that the funds released to
A writ of prohibition only lies against the tribunal, the Senators had been part of the Disbursement
corporation, board, officer or person’s exercise of Acceleration Program, a program designed by the DBM
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. A writ of to ramp up the spending to accelerate economic
prohibition is issued to afford the aggrieved party a relief expansion. This was bought to the consciousness of the
against the respondent’s usurpation or grave abuse of nation, prompting nine petitions were consolidated
jurisdiction or power. On the other hand, a petition for assailing the constitutionality of the DAP and issuances
mandamus is merely directed against the tribunal, relation to it.
corporation, board, officer, or person who unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins One of the contentions made by the respondent is that
as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station or who there is no actual controversy that is ripe for adjudication
unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment in the absence of adverse claims between the parties.
of a right or office to which such other is entitled. Thus, Furthermore, they aver that the special civil action of
a writ of mandamus will only issue to compel an officer certiorari and prohibition are not proper actions for
to perform a ministerial duty. It will not control a public directly assailing the constitutionality of the DAP and
officer’s exercise of discretion as where the law imposes other executive issuances implementing the DAP.
upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference
to any manner in which he is required to act precisely The respondents argue that it is the application of the
because it is his judgment that is to be exercised, not that DAP to actual situations that the petitioners can question
of the court. either in the trial courts or in the COA; that if the
Page 33
petitioners are dissatisfied with the ruling either of the is consistent with the republican system of checks and
trial courts or of the COA, they can appeal the decision of balances.
the trial courts by petition for review on certiorari, or
assail the decision or final order of the COA by special Thus, petitioners in availing the remedy of special civil
civil action for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of actions for certiorari and prohibition is correct.
Court.
Topic: Prohibition
Does certiorari , prohibition, and mandamus the proper
remedies to assail the validity of the Disbursement Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Atlanta Industries, Inc.
Acceleration Program? G.R. No. 193796. July 2, 2014
By: Icao, Gean Pearl
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the petitions under Rule 65 are the proper remedies Bar Question:
to assail the validity of Disbursement Acceleration Fund.
Land Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction
The expanded concept of judicial review provides that and Development (IBRD) entered into Loan Agreement
judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice provided that at least two (2) local government units will
not only "to settle actual controversies involving rights participate through Subsidiary Loan Agreement (SLA)
which are legally demandable and enforceable" but also with Land Bank. Land Bank entered into an SLA with the
"to determine whether or not there has been a grave Iligan City. There was a public bidding through BAC.
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of Atlanta participates but finished second to the lowest
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality bid. BAC informed Atlanta that the bidding was declared
of the Government." Furthermore, the present Rules of a failure upon the recommendation of Land Bank and it
Court uses two special civil actions for determining and also disqualified Atlanta. There was a re-bidding. During
correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or the pre-bid, BAC declared that the project was not
excess of jurisdiction. These are the special civil actions covered by RA 9184 or by any of the GPPB's issuances.
for certiorari and prohibition, and both are governed by Atlanta filed Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with
Rule 65. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the
necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of re-bidding in Manila RTC. Manila RTC declared the
certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors subject bidding null and void and enjoined the City
of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, Government of Iligan and BAC. Land Bank and the BAC
corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi- asserted that the case was dismissible for improper
judicial or ministerial functions but also to set right, undo venue, mootness, non-exhaustion of administrative
and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion remedies.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch
or instrumentality of the Government, even if the latter
does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions. Did Manila RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the
instant prohibition case?
In this case, the Supreme Court in discharging its duty
under Section 1, Article VIII, to set right and undo any act
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
Suggested Answer:
of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the
Government, the Court is not at all precluded from No. Section 4 of the Rule 65 provides that petition for
making the inquiry provided the challenge was properly prohibition must be filed "in the Regional Trial Court
brought by interested or affected parties. The Court has exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined
been thereby entrusted expressly or by necessary by the Court." BP 129 also provides that Regional Trial
implication with both the duty and the obligation of Courts original jurisdiction over cases of certiorari,
determining, in appropriate cases, the validity of any prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus,
assailed legislative or executive action. This entrustment and injunction but lays down the limitation that the writs
Page 34
issued therein are enforceable only within their Suggested Answer:

respective territorial jurisdictions.
No. The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a
In this case, the writ of prohibition issued by the Manila capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent
RTC in order to restrain acts beyond the bounds of the and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty
territorial limits of its jurisdiction (i.e., in Iligan City) is null or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as
and void. Also on a matter of procedure, the Court where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
further discerns that the Manila RTC should have manner because of passion or hostility.
dismissed the case outright for failure of Atlanta to
exhaust administrative remedies. In the case at bar, there is no grave abuse of discretion
when Section 60 of the IRR provided for a "hold-over"
status on the part of ATO employees. A careful perusal of
Section 86 of R.A. No. 9497 reveals that the transfer of
Topic: Prohibition ATO personnel, unless they opted to retire from the
service, to the CAAP implies the application of the hold-
Civil Aviation Authority Of The Philippines Employees’ over principle. There being no express, much less implied
Union Vs. Civil Aviation Authority Of The Philippines prohibition of the application of the hold-over principle
739 SCRA 570 in R.A. No. 9497 per se, such proviso in the latter’s IRR
By: Lacida, N. does not amount to grave abuse of discretion.
PRINCIPLE: A petition for prohibition will prosper only if

Bar Question: grave abuse of discretion is manifested. Mere abuse of
discretion is not enough; it must be grave.
R.A. No. 9497 was passed directing the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Transportation Office (ATO) to
continue to hold office and assume the powers of the
Topic: Mandamus
CAAP Director General until his successor shall have been
appointed and inducted into office in accordance with
Star Special Watchman and Detective Agency Inc. vs
said law. Likewise, retirement packages were provided to
Puerto Princesa City
ATO employees who were willing to retire from the
GR NO. 181792 April 21, 2014
service. Respondent, who is an appointed Acting Director
By: Licayan, A.
General of the CAAP, issued orders and memoranda for
the active participation of incumbent and organic
personnel of the defunct ATO along with his hired Bar Question:
consultants in the crafting and formulation of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. SSWDA owns parcels of land in Puerto Princesa. When
9497, the new Organizational Structure and Staffing the government established a military camp in Puerto
Pattern (OSSP) and the Qualification Standards (QS) for Princesa, SSWDA’s lands were used as a road right of way
the proposed new plantilla of positions within the CAAP. named Wescom Road. Later the road was developed by
Petitioner, a legitimate union of employees of the government. SSWDA filed an action for payment of
respondent Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, just compensation. RTC rendered a decision in favor of
asserts that the issuances of said orders and memoranda SSWDA. Later, SSWDA filed another complaint for failure
resulted in the classification and treatment of the to pay the full amount of compensation and demanded
incumbent personnel of ATO and security of tenure of execution. RTC denied on the ground that government
government employees. Aggrieved, petitioners filed the funds cannot be subject to execution and levy. SWWDA
Original Petition for Prohibition directly before this file a petition for mandamus to direct, command and
Court. compel Puerto Princesa to pay the judgment award.
Will the petition for prohibition prosper? Is the remedy of mandamus proper to compel Puerto
Princesa to pay the judgment award to SSWDA?
Page 35
Topic: Mandamus
Suggested Answer:
Buena Jr vs Benito
No.
GR No. 181760, October 14, 2014,
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of By: Talisic, E
competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the
sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or
board, or to some corporation or person requiring the
performance of a particular duty therein specified, which Bar Question:
duty results from the official station of the party to whom
Regional Governor A of the ARMM appointed Dr. R as
the writ is directed or from operation of law. The writ is
Assistant Schools Division Superintendent of the
a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a
Department of Education (DepEd) Division in a
public right and to compel the performance of a public
temporary capacity. In 2005, A reappointed R in the same
duty, most especially when the public right involved is
position but in a permanent capacity. A requested the
mandated by the Constitution. As a rule, mandamus will
Civil Service Commission Regional Office of the ARMM to
not lie in the absence of any of the following grounds: [a]
attest to R’s appointment. However, Regional Director P
that the court, officer, board, or person against whom
declined on the ground that R did not possess the career
the action is taken unlawfully neglected the performance
executive service eligibility required for the said position.
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from office, trust, or station; or [b] that such The R filed a petition for Mandamus before the Regional
court, officer, board, or person has unlawfully excluded Trial Court to compel the Regional Office to attest to his
petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a right permanent appointment arguing that the position does
or office to which he is entitled. Mandamus can be issued not belong to the Career Executive Service under the
only in cases where the usual modes of procedure and Administrative Code of 1987, thus, the position does not
forms of remedy are powerless to afford relief. That require Career Executive Service eligibility. He further
there should be no plain, speedy and adequate remedy claimed that under RA 9054, Regional Governor of the
in the ordinary course of law other than the remedy of ARMM is the appointing authority for positions in the
mandamus being invoked. civil service in the region.
In this case, SSWDA still has another remedy. Regarding Since A already exercised his discretion, the Regional
final money judgment against the government or any of Office had no choice but to attest to his appointment. P
its agencies or instrumentalities, the legal remedy is to claimed that the permanent appointee must have career
seek relief with the COA pursuant to Supreme Court executive service eligibility. According to P, the Regional
Administrative Circular. SSWDA should have filed a Office recognizes the autonomy of the ARMM. However,
petition for certiorari with COA. COA has primary until the region enacts its own regional civil service law,
jurisdiction to adjudicate money claims. The COA still the Regional Office shall carry on with the Civil Service
retains its primary jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim even Commission’s mandate under the Constitution to
after the issuance of a writ of execution. promote and enforce civil service laws and rules.
Whether R correctly availed himself of a petition for

mandamus against the Civil Service Commission's refusal
to attest to his appointment
Suggested Answer:
Yes. A petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to

compel the Civil Service Commission to attest to the
appointment of respondent
Page 36
resort to the courts. Nevertheless, there are exceptions

Under Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. In
a petition for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal, this case, the facts are undisputed. R is not career
corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects executive service eligible. The question is whether the
the performance of an act which the law specifically position for which he was appointed (Assistant Schools
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or Division Superintendent of DepEd) requires career
station. It may also be filed when any tribunal, executive service eligibility. This is a purely legal question
corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully which is an exception to the rule on exhaustion of
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right administrative remedies.
or office to which such other is entitled. For mandamus
to lie, the act sought to be enjoined must be a ministerial Therefore, R did not err in filing a petition for mandamus
act or duty. An act is ministerial if the act should be with the trial court.
performed "[under] a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of [the
Topic: Mandamus
tribunal or corporation's] own judgment upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act done."The tribunal,
corporation, board, officer, or person must have no
Martinez vs. Martin
choice but to perform the act specifically enjoined by
law. This is opposed to a discretionary act wherein the 743 SCRA 718
officer has the choice to decide how or when to perform By: Sios-e, B.
the duty. In the context of attestation of appointments
in the civil service, this court has ruled that the Civil
Service Commission's attestation is a ministerial duty Bar Question:
once it finds the appointee eligible for the position. The
In compliance with the Court's Decision in the case
Commission "is limited only to the non-discretionary
entitled Natalia v. CA, the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo
authority of determining whether or not the person
City, Branch 73 (RTC) issued an alias writ of
appointed meets all the required conditions laid down by
execution dated February 20, 2004 (February 20, 2004
the law." If the appointee possesses the required civil
Alias Writ) granting in favor of petitioner Antonio
service eligibility, the Commission has "no choice but to
Martinez (petitioner), among others, possession of
attest to the appointment."
portions of two (2) parcels of land located in Sitio
Banabas, Antipolo City, covered by Transfer Certificates
In the case at bar, respondent R availed himself of the
of Title (TCT) Nos. 31527 and 31528 (now both covered
correct remedy. Given his claim that he possesses the
by TCT No. N-67845) (subject lots).On March 30, 2004,
required civil service eligibility for the position of
respondent Deputy Sheriff Rolando Palmares (Deputy
Assistant Schools Division Superintendent, he correctly
Sheriff) of the same court executed a Certificate of
filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Civil Service
Delivery of Possession, attesting that the 86.26-hectare
Commission to approve his appointment. The Regional
portion of the subject lots covered by TCT No. N-67845
Office argues that respondent R availed himself of the
was already delivered to petitioner and his co-parties in
wrong remedy considering that the plain, speedy, and
Civil Case No. 359-A.
adequate remedy of appeal to the Civil Service
Commission proper was still available. The trial court
Petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of another alias
should have dismissed R’s petition for mandamus. The
writ of execution before the RTC, arguing that such
general rule is that there be no other plain, speedy, and
issuance was necessary in view of private respondent’s
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law when
refusal to comply with the February 20, 2004 Alias Writ.
filing a petition for mandamus. Moreover, the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that a
In an Omnibus Order dated September 10, 2007, the RTC
party "exhaust all administrative remedies to give the
denied petitioner’s motion. It found no need to issue
administrative agency an opportunity to decide the
another alias writ of execution since the February 20,
matter and to prevent unnecessary and premature
Page 37
2004 Alias Writ had already been duly served, possession of [the winning party), then and only then
implemented, and fully satisfied. may [the losing party) be charged with and punished for
contempt.
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration. Acting
on the belief that the RTC would deny the motion or
might take a long time to resolve the same, petitioner
then filed a petition for mandamus before the Court to Topic: Writ of Possession
compel the RTC to issue another alias writ of execution
against private respondent and for such alias writ to be LZK Holdings and Dev Corp v. Planters Development
immediately executed and fully implemented after its Bank 714 SCRA 294
issuance. In a Resolution dated July 21, 2008, the Court By: Tamse, H.
remanded the petition to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 105092. Bar Question:
Did the CA correctly dismiss the petition for mandamus LZK Holdings obtained a ₱40,000,000.00 loan from
for lack of merit? Planters Bank on December 16, 1996 and secured the
same with a Real Estate Mortgage over its lot located in
La Union. The real estate mortgage was extrajudicially
foreclosed due to non-payment and the lot was sold at a
Suggested Answer: public auction. Planters Bank emerged as the highest
bidder during the auction sale.
No. The petition lacks merit.
LZK Holdings filed before the RTC of Makati City, a
As case law defines, a writ of mandamus is a command complaint for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure and
issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
the name of the state or sovereign, directed to an inferior (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the
court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or consolidation of title over the lot by Planters Bank.
person, requiring the performance of a particular duty Consequently, the RTC of Makati issued a TRO effective
therein specified, which duty results from the official for 20 days enjoining Planters Bank from consolidating its
station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from title over the property and issued a writ of preliminary
operation of law. It is employed to compel the injunction.
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty which,
as opposed to a discretionary one, is that which an officer On December 27, 1999, Planters Bank filed an ex-parte
or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession with the
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal RTC of San Fernando but was suspended in view of the
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his or its TRO and writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC
own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the of Makati.
act done. Being an extraordinary remedy, mandamus is
available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and Planters Bank appealed the order of the RTC of San
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as Fernando which held in abeyance the resolution of its ex
a motion for reconsideration. parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession.
The Court of Appeals granted the appeal and annulled
The proper procedure if the [losing party] refuse[s] to the assailed order of the RTC of San Fernando. LZK
deliver possession of the lands is not for the court to cite Holdings sought recourse with the Supreme Court in a
them for contempt but for the sheriff to dispossess them petition for review docketed as G.R. 167998 but on April
of the premises and deliver the possession thereof to the 27, 2007, the Supreme Court affirmed CA’s ruling and
[winning party]. However, if subsequent to such decreed that Planters Bank may apply for and is entitled
dispossession, [the losing party) enter[s) into or upon the to a writ of possession as the purchaser of the property
properties for the purpose of executing acts of in the foreclosure sale.
ownership or possession or in any manner disturb the
Page 38
Planters Bank filed before the RTC of San Fernando a

motion to set ex-parte hearing for the issuance of a writ
of possession contending that as the purchaser in the Topic: Prohibition
foreclosure sale, it may apply for a writ of possession
during the redemption period. LZK Holdings opposed the Quintos vs. DARAB
motion but such motion was denied by the RTC of San 715 SCRA 592 February 10, 2014
Fernando and set the hearing on April 14, 2008. By: Abangan, Richard Jr.
On April 8, 2008, the RTC of San Fernando issued an Bar Question:

order declaring the scheduled hearing moot and
academic granting Planter Bank’s ex-parte motion for the GCFI contracted substantial loans with the Philippine
issuance of a writ of possession of the subject parcel of National Bank (PNB) and the Development Bank of the
land, together with all the improvements existing Philippines (DBP), which were secured by several real
thereon upon the filing of bond by Planters Bank in the estate mortgages over GCFI properties, including the
amount of two million pesos (Php2,000,000.00) which subject property. PNB and DBP transferred their financial
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. claims against GCFI to the Asset Privatization Trust (APT).
PNB and DBP initiated extra-judicial foreclosure
Did the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in proceedings against the GCFI properties for GCFI’s
affirming the issuance of writ of possession by the RTC of continuous failure to pay its loans. However, the said
San Fernando? foreclosure proceedings were enjoined by the Regional
Trial Court (RTC). APT entered into a verbal agreement
with 53 members of KAMIFCI, allowing the latter to be
installed as tenants of the mango orchard within the
Suggested Answer: subject property.
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error Is the tenancy agreement valid?
in affirming the issuance of writ of possession by the RTC
of San Fernando.
Suggested Answer:
The doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of
judgment postulates that ''when a right or fact has been No. It is settled that a mortgagee does not become the
judicially tried and determined by a court of competent owner of the mortgaged property until he has foreclosed
jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such trial has the mortgage and, thereafter, purchased the property at
been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it the foreclosure sale. With the foreclosure proceedings
remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the having been enjoined, APT could not have been regarded
parties and those in privity with them. as the “landowner” of the subject property. Thus, since
the consent of the standing landowner, GCFI, had not
In the case at bar, all the elements of the doctrine are been secured by APT in this case, it had no authority to
present. The final judgment in G.R. No. 167998 was enter into any tenancy agreement with the KAMIFCI
rendered by the Court pursuant to its jurisdiction over members.
the review of decisions and rulings of the CA. It was a
judgment on the merits of Planters Banks’s right to apply In the present case, a tenancy-relationship exists
for and be issued a writ of possession. Lastly, the parties between GCFI and the 33 KAMIFCI members who were
in G.R. No. 167998 are the same parties involved in the allegedly installed as tenants by APT, the “legal
present case. possessor” of the mango orchard at that time. Records,
are however, bereft of any showing that APT was
Therefore, LZK Holdings can no longer question Planter authorized by the property’s landowner, GCFI, to install
Bank’s right to a writ of possession over the subject tenants thereon. To be sure, APT only assumed the rights
property because the doctrine of conclusiveness of of the original mortgagees in this case, i.e., PNB and DBP,
judgment bars the relitigation of such particular issue. which, however, have yet to exercise their right to
Page 39
foreclose the mortgaged properties due to the RTC’s a ground to hold in abeyance the issuance of the writ of
order enjoining the same. possession. Thus, it was ministerial upon the judge to
issue the writ of possession in favor of Q and Z.
Principle: It is settled that a mortgagee does not become
the owner of the mortgaged property until he has In this case, the judge committed grave abuse of
foreclosed the mortgage and, thereafter, purchased the discretion in issuing the order in abeyance. Failure to
property at the foreclosure sale. move for a reconsideration of the assailed order prior to
the availment of a special civil action for certiorari may
be dispensed with where the decision is a patent nullity
or where there is a violation of due process.
Topic: Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
Thus, the grant of the petition for certiorari was valid.
Spouses Sombillon vs Atty. Garay
G.R. No. 179914 June 16, 2014
By: Abragan, M.
Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Bar Question:
Cabling v. Lumapas
X and Y were previous owners of a property. The G.R. No. 196950, June 18, 2014
property was mortgaged as security for their loan with Q. By: Bejasa, K
The property was subsequently foreclosed by Q. The
property was not redeemed even after the lapse of the Bar Question:
redemption.
X was the highest bidder in an extrajudicial foreclosure
X and Y asked Z to repurchase the property in exchange
sale over a property. Later on, X filed an Application for
they promised Garay that they will sell a portion of the
the issuance of a Writ of Possession, which the RTC
lot to him. Z found out that Q was selling the entire
granted. Y filed a Motion for Leave of Court for
property for a lesser cost. So Z went to Q to buy the said
Intervention as Party Defendant with urgent motion to
property. A writ of possession was issued in favor of Q.
Hold in Abeyance Implementation of Writ of Possession,
X and Y moved for reconsideration of the issuance of the claiming that the property had previously been sold to
writ of possession because according to them Z was their her by the property’s registered owner which is the
former counsel in another case. judgment debtor/mortgagor in the extrajudicial
foreclosure sale, pursuant to a Deed of Conditional Sale.
The lower court Issued an order holding in abeyance the The RTC granted the Motion filed by Y reasoning that an
implementation of the writ of possession. ex parte writ of possession issued pursuant to Act No.
3135 cannot be enforced against a third person who is in
Can the court grant the petition for certiorari even if actual possession of the foreclosed property and who is
there was failure to file a motion for reconsideration not in privity with the debtor/mortgagor.
where the decision assailed is null or violates due
process? Is the RTC correct?
Suggested Answer:
Suggested Answer:
The RTC is not correct.
Yes, the court can grant the petition for certiorari.
Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which is made
Under the law, once title is consolidated under the name applicable to extrajudicial foreclosures of real estate
of the purchaser, the issuance of the writ of possession mortgages, the possession of the property shall be given
becomes a ministerial on the part of the court and no to the purchaser or last redemptioner unless a third
discretion is left to the court. The regularity and validity party is actually holding the property in a capacity
of the mortgage or the foreclosure may not be raised as adverse to the judgment obligor, and thus, the court’s
Page 40
obligation to issue an ex parte writ of possession in favor Principle:

of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale
ceases to be ministerial when there is a third party in A decedent does not have the capacity to be sued and
possession of the property claiming a right adverse to may not be named a party defendant in a court action.
that of the judgment debtor/mortgagor.
However, in the present case, Y cannot be said to possess

Topic: Jurisdiction
the subject property by adverse title or right as her
possession is merely premised on the alleged conditional
Inocencia Tagalog v. Maria Lim Vda De Gonzalez
sale of the property to her by the judgment
G.R. No. 201286, July 18, 2014
debtor/mortgagor, considering that the execution of a
By: Chavez, E.
contract of conditional sale does not immediately
transfer title to the property to be sold from seller to
buyer. Bar Question:
Plaintiffs (Respondents) A,B,C,D, E, F and G are among

Topic: Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer
the registered owners of parcel of land XXX, for quit
sometime, T the defendant (petitioner) has been
Berot v. Siapno occupying a portion of the parcel of land, as lessee
729 SCRA 475 thereof, where her house was being built with a light
By: Calo, M
materials and was paying rentals over the same by virtue
of a verbal lease on a month to month basis. Such house
was damaged by a strong typhoon and T with her family
Bar Question:
were no longer staying and even stop paying the rental
A and Spouses C & D obtained a loan from E. As security for quite some time. As a consequence, the verbal
for the loan, they mortgaged a portion of parcel of land. contract is deemed expired, the Plaintiff (Respondents)
A died and the mortgagors defaulted. demanded the Defendant (petitioner) to remove the
scattered debris and notified that they already intending
E filed an action for foreclosure. Spouses C and D alleged
that the lower court has no jurisdiction over A for the to use the property and subdivide or develop it for their
reason that no summons was served upon the latter. personal use. T refused to remove the scattered debris
Thus the complaint was amended by substituting the instead brought in cement, large steel bars, hollow
estate of A in her stead. Is this correct? blocks, sand and gravel and other construction materials
into the premises because he is claiming that he still the
lessee of that parcel of land.
Suggested Answer:
Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject
No. This is incorrect. matter
A deceased does not have such legal entity as is
necessary to bring action so much so that a motion to
substitute cannot lie and should be denied. Suggested Answer:
An action begun by a decedent’s estate cannot be said to The petition is meritorious,
have been begun by a legal person, since an estate is not
a legal entity; such an action is a nullity and a motion to Petitioner contends that the subject of the action is for
amend the party plaintiff will not likewise lie, there being unlawful detainer, thus cognizable by first level court or
nothing before the court to amend.
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Since the case was filed
Page 41
with the RTC, a second level court, the RTC’s decision Suggested Answer:
should be rendered void for lack of jurisdiction over the
No, Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:
case. The Jurisdiction of a particular court is determined
by the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from SEC. 33.Deed and possession to be given
the allegations in the complaint. In order to determine at expiration of redemption period; by whom
whether the lower court had jurisdiction, it is necessary executed or given. – If no redemption be made
to first ascertain the nature of the complaint filed before within one (1) year from the date of registration
of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled
it.
to a conveyance and possession of the property;
or, if so redeemed whenever sixty (60) days
In the present case, the complaint was for recovery of
have elapsed and no other redemption has been
possession, preliminary mandatory injunction with a made, and notice thereof given, and the time for
prayer for temporary restraining order with damages redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is
and attorney’s fees. In sum, since respondents entitled to the conveyance and possession; but
’complaint should have been filed with the MTC, the RTC in all cases the judgment obligor shall have the
seriously erred in proceedings with the case. Wherefore, entire period of one (1) year from the date of
we grant the petition, and set aside the resolutions registration of the sale to redeem the property.
The deed shall be executed by the officer making
without prejudice to the parties seeking relief in the
the sale or his successor in office, and in the
proper forum. So Ordered. latter case shall have the same validity as though
the officer making the sale had continued in
office and executed it.
It is but logical that Section 33, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court be applied to cases involving
Okabe vs Saturnino,
extrajudicially foreclosed properties that were
733 SCRA 652
bought by a purchaser and later sold to third-
By: Dy, I.
party-purchasers after the lapse of the
redemption period. The remedy of a writ of
possession, a remedy that is available to the
Bar Question:
mortgagee-purchaser to acquire possession of
Spouses A and B obtained a loan with Z bank, which was the foreclosed property from the mortgagor, is
secured by the subject property. The couple failed to made available to a subsequent purchaser, but
settle their loan obligation with the bank. Z bank then only after hearing and after determining that the
extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. Certificate of subject property is still in the possession of the
Sale was then issued, considering that the property was mortgagor.
not redeemed by the spouses during the redemption
Unlike if the purchaser is the mortgagee or a
period, consolidation of ownership was then inscribed
third party during the redemption period, a writ
and a new TCT was issued in favor of the bank, Z. Without
of possession may issue ex-parte or without
taking possession of the subject property, Z sold the land
hearing.(see Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as
to C.C filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an Ex-
amended by Act no. 4118)
Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession over the
subject property. In other words, if the purchaser is a third party
who acquired the property after the redemption
Is an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of
period, a hearing must be conducted to
possession the proper remedy of C in obtaining
determine whether possession over the subject
possession of the subject property? Explain.
property is still with the mortgagor or is already
in the possession of a third party holding the
same adversely to the defaulting debtor or
Page 42
mortgagor. If the property is in the possession of property from being transferred to him. For sure, such
the mortgagor, a writ of possession could thus failure did not give rise to any right in favor of the
be issued. Otherwise, the remedy of a writ of mortgagor or the respondents as his successors-in-
possession is no longer available to such interest to take back the property already validly sold
purchaser, but he can take possession over the through public auction. Nor did such failure invalidate
property through an ordinary action of the foreclosure proceedings. To maintain otherwise
ejectment. would render nugatory the judicial foreclosure and
foreclosure sale, thus unduly disturbing judicial stability.
The non-transfer of the title notwithstanding, Apolinario
Cruz as the purchaser should not be deprived of the
property purchased at the foreclosure sale. With the
respondents having been fully aware of the mortgage,
Robles vs Yapcinco
and being legally bound by the judicial foreclosure and
G.R. No. 169568, October 22, 2014
consequent public sale, and in view of the unquestioned
By: Elumbaring, J
possession by Apolinario Cruz and his successors-in-
interest (including the petitioner) from the time of the
Bar Question:
foreclosure sale until the present, the respondents could
The property in litis was originally registered in the name not assert any better right to the property. It would be
of Fernando F. Yapcinco, married to Maxima Alcedo. In the height of inequity to still permit them to regain the
May 4,1944, Yapcinco constituted a mortgage on the property on the basis alone of the lack of judicial
property in favor of Jose C. Marcelo to secure the confirmation of the sale. After all, under the applicable
performance of his obligation. In turn, Marcelo rule earlier cited, the judicial confirmation operated only
transferred his rights as the mortgagee to Apolinario "to divest the rights of all the parties to the action and to
Cruz on October 24, 1944. When Yapcinco did not pay vest their rights in the purchaser, subject to such rights
the obligation, Apolinario Cruz brought an action for of redemption as may be allowed by law."
judicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Apolinario Cruz was
Therefore, the late Fernando F. Yapcinco and the
adjudged the highest bidder in the public auction held on
respondents as his successors-in-interest were divested
March 18, 1959. In his favor was then issued the
of their right in the property, for they did not duly
certificate of absolute sale, and he took possession of the
exercise the equity of redemption decreed in the
property in due course. However, he did not register the
decision of the trial court. With Yapcinco having thereby
certificate of sale; nor was a judicial confirmation of sale
effectively ceased to be the owner of the property sold,
issued.
the property was taken out of the mass of the assets of
Are the heirs of the mortgagor lawfully entitled to the Yapcinco upon the expiration of the equity of
property in litis because there was no registration of the redemption.
certificate of sale or confirmation from the court?
Answer: No.
The applicable rule on March 18, 1959, the date of the

foreclosure sale, was Section 3, Rule 7037 of the Rules of
Court, which relevantly provided that: "Such sale shall
not affect the rights of persons holding prior Topic: Forcible Entry And Unlawful Detainer
incumbrances upon the property or a part thereof, and
when confirmed by an order of the court, it shall operate Acbang vs. Luczon Jr.
to divest the rights of all the parties to the action and to G.R. No. 164246, Jan. 15, 2014
vest their rights in the purchaser, subject to such rights By: Eupena, R.
of redemption as may be allowed by law."
The effect of the failure of Apolinario Cruz to obtain the Bar Question:
judicial confirmation was only to prevent the title to the
Page 43
Spouses X commenced an ejectment suit against Y and

her son and wife in the MTC. Y did not file an answer,
thus declaring them in default, and the court rendered Bar Question:
judgment against them. Y then appealed to RTC. While
the case is pending appeal, Spouses X moved for the X filed a Free Patent Application over a lot. Y presented a
execution of the decision pending appeal alleging that protest, claiming that X had no right to apply for title over
the defendants’ Y had not filed a supersede as bond to the properties.
stay the execution. Y opposed the motion for execution
pending appeal, insisting that the failure of the Spouses The the free patent application of X was denied.
X to move for the execution in the MTC constituted a
waiver of their right to the immediate execution; and Y is advised to file Free Patent Applications immediately
that, therefore, there was nothing to stay, rendering the after the finality of this Decision.
filing of the supersede as bond unnecessary. Judge L
granted the motion for immediate execution. Z directing respondents A, B and C to implement the writ
of execution against X.
Did the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in
granting the motion for execution? X filed a special civil action for certiorari to assail the
memorandum issued by Z.
Decide on the case.

Suggested Answer:
No, the judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion
Suggested Answer:
Jurisprudence provides that a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory
The special civil action for certiorari should be denied.
upon motion, but the defendant, to stay its immediate
execution, must:
Under the rules, A special civil action for certiorari is the
(1) Perfect an appeal; proper action to bring when a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi–judicial function has acted
(2) File a supersede as bond; and without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
(3) Periodically deposit the rentals becoming due during jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
the pendency of the appeal. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The
exercise of judicial function consists in the power to
In this case, there was a perfection of appeal by Y for
determine what the law is and what the legal rights of
filing a notice of appeal. However, it did not suffice to
the parties are, and then to adjudicate upon the rights of
stay the immediate execution of the decision without the
the parties.
filing of the sufficient supersede as bond and the deposit
of the accruing rentals.
In the instant case, Z was not thereby called upon to
Therefore, not having complied with the requirements to adjudicate the rights of the contending parties or to
stay the immediate execution, the Judge correctly exercise any discretion of a judicial nature, but only
granted the motion. performing an administrative duty of enforcing and
implementing the writ.
Therefore, the petition for certiorari should be denied for

Topic: Certiorari lack of merit.
Pascual vs Daquiog Principle: The issuance of a memorandum implementing

GR 162063 a writ of execution did not derive from the performance
By: Juarez, J.
Page 44
of a judicial or quasi–judicial function therefore not

covered under the petition for certiorari.
Sps. Marcelo v Judge Ramsey Domingo G. Pichay

Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer A.M. No.MTJ-13-1838; March 12, 2014
By: Lleve, A.
Mangaser vs Ugay
744 SCRA 13
By: Lim, E. Bar Question:
X (Sps. Marcelo) were the plaintiffs in a civil case for

Bar Question: unlawful detainer before Judge Y (Judge Pichay), the
presiding judge of the MeTC. Judge Y decided the case in
M filed a forcible entry case against U. M alleged that he favor of X and ordered Z to vacate and surrender the
was the registered owner and possessor of the subject possession of the property through a writ of execution. X
land; and that U stealthy intruded to his land and built a obtained the possession of the subject property,
residential house without his consent. U alleged, on the however, Z re-entered the property on the same day. X
other hand, that M was never in the actual possession of moved to cite Z for indirect contempt but Judge Y
the property occupied by him. decided not to. Judge Y ordered instead Z to surrender
the subject property to X with 10 days. Z then filed a
Is the action for forcible entry proper? supplemental motion and reply alleging that the
miscellaneous sales application of X over the subject
property had been denied by the Department of
Suggested Answer: Environment and Natural Resources. In result, Judge Y
directed X to file their opposition to the Supplemental
Yes, the action for forcible entry is proper. The Supreme Motion and Reply. X failed to file. Disconcerted of Judge
Court held that for a forcible entry suit to prosper, the Y’s inaction over the case, X filed an administrative case,
plaintiffs must allege and prove: (a) that they have prior alleging that Judge Y attributed the delay to the new
physical possession of the property; (b) that they were argument of the defendant.
deprived of possession either by force, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth; and (c) that the action was Is Judge Y administratively liable?
filed within one (1) year from the time the owners or
legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the
physical possession of the property. In the case at bar, Suggested Answer:
petitioner M has acquired juridical possession over the
Yes. Judge Y is liable on the administrative case against
subject land through its registration with the register of
him.
deeds. M does not need to have his feet on every square
meter of the ground to be considered that he is in
Based on jurisprudence, ejectment cases are summary
possession of the subject lot.
proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means
Principle: of protecting actual possession or right of possession of
property and that it becomes mandatory or ministerial
The Supreme Court held that for a forcible entry suit to duty of the court to issue a writ of execution to enforce
prosper, the plaintiffs must allege and prove: (a) that the judgment which has become executory.
they have prior physical possession of the property; (b)
that they were deprived of possession either by force, In the case at bar, Y continued with the proceedings by
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and (c) that the setting the motions for hearing, notwithstanding that the
action was filed within one (1) year from the time the matter had already been submitted for resolution, to the
owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation effect of unreasonably delaying the execution of the
of the physical possession of the property. subject decision.
Page 45
Therefore, Y is administratively liable. For failure of the petitioner to show that the possession
by the respondent is lawful at first, the ruling of the
Principle: MCTC must be upheld.
Ejectment cases are summary proceedings intended to
provide an expeditious means of protecting actual
possession or right of possession of property and that it Topic: Ejectment
becomes mandatory or ministerial duty of the court to
issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment which Dela Cruz vs.Capco
has become executory. G.R. No. 176055, March 17, 2014
By: Silawan, D.
Topic: Unlawful Detainer

Bar Question:
Amada Z. Zacarias vs. Anacay
G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014
By: Santiago, F
Petitioner P’s mother, M, acquired ownership of the land
that was duly registered under her name. M, out of
The Petitioner filed for a case of Unlawful detainer neighborliness and blood relationship tolerated R’s
against the respondents and order the same to vacate occupation of the said land.
the formers lot. The petitioner alleged in its complaint
that sometime in May, 2007, she discovered that the Subsequently, the subject land was conveyed to P.
defendants have entered the subject property and Intending to construct a house, P, demanded R to vacate
occupied the same. The MCTC ruled that it has no the property, but R refused, he asserted that he have all
jurisdiction since the case being one of forcible entry and the right to occupy such land since he is an heir of the
the case has already prescribed after the lapse of one alleged true owner of the land. Hence, P filed a complaint
year from its discovery. for unlawful detainer against R.
Is the ruling of the MCTC correct? Can the Court pass upon the issue on ownership in a case
of unlawful detainer?
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the ruling of MCTC is correct. Suggested Answer:
Yes. Under the jurisprudence, the only issue in an

To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential ejectment case is the physical possession of real property
that the plaintiff’s supposed acts of tolerance must have – possession de facto and not possession de jure. But
been present right from the start of the possession which where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of
is later sought to be recovered. Otherwise, if the ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue to
possession was unlawful from the start, an action for determine who between the parties has the better right
unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy. to possess the property.
The bare allegation of petitioner that "sometime in May, In this case, both parties anchor their right to possess
2007, she discovered that the defendants have entered based on ownership, P by his own ownership while R by
the subject property and occupied the same would show the ownership of his ascendant as one of the heirs of the
that respondents entered the land and built their houses alleged true owner of the property. Thus, the Court may
thereon clandestinely and without petitioner's consent, passed upon the issue of ownership in this case to
which facts are constitutive of forcible entry, not determine the issue of possession. However, it must be
unlawful detainer. emphasized that the adjudication of the issue of
Page 46
ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action "if the dispossession has not lasted for more than one
between the same parties involving title to the property. year, then an ejectment proceeding (in this case unlawful
detainer) is proper ."
Thus, the court may pass upon the issue of ownership in
this case. In the case at bar, while indeed T, as the victor in the
unlawful detainer suit, is entitled to the fair rental value
for the use and occupation of the unit in the building,
such compensation should not be reckoned from the
Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer time P began to occupy the same, but from the time of
the demand to vacate. Here, from the moment P started
Pro-Guard Security Services Corp. v. Tormil Realty and to occupy the unit in March 1994 up to November 15,
Dev. Corp, 730 SCRA 104 1998, the right of P to possess the premises was not
By: Sultan, J. challenged. It was only after T prevailed over E in its
ownership of the same that it terminated P right to
possess the unit it was occupying through a letter to
Bar Question: vacate dated November 16, 1998. Hence, it is only from
that point that T is considered to have withdrawn its
On March 6, 1991,P entered into an agreement with E for tolerance of P occupation. Conversely, P possession
the rent of a unit in the 3rd floor of Torres Building. Prior became unlawful at that same moment.(November 16,
to the agreement, a case was held in favor of T against E 1998)
over the right of ownership of the building in the ruling
of SEC. On November 5, 1998, T sent letters to E and P Therefore, P is to pay for the fair and reasonable rental
asking them to validate their possession/enter into a of the premises in the amount of ₱20,000.00 per month
lease contract with T and at the same time settle their with legal interest beginning November 16, 1998 up to
past and current rentals. The letters were ignored, T, on the time that the premises are fully vacated.
November 16, 1998 sent them separate demands to
vacate the premises and pay the monthly rental of
₱20,000.00 from the time of their occupation thereof
until the same are actually turned over to T. Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Subsequently, T filed a case of unlawful detainer against Midway Maritime And Technological Foundation Vs.
E and P. The METC, RTC and CA ruled that the payment Castro, et al. G.R. No.189061, Aug. 6, 2014
of the rentals is reckoned from the time they failed and By: Aguilando, L.
refused to heed the demand letters to vacate and
surrender the possession. With respect to P, it was Bar Question:
ordered to pay rental of the premises from June, 1995
until the premises is fully vacated. Two parcels of land, which a residential building stands,
were owned by C. The said parcels of land were
Is the decision of the court correct? foreclosed by Union Bank and the same were sold to T in
an auction. T leased the same to M and thereafter, sold
Suggested Answer:
the parcels of land to A, wife of M. M leased the
No. The decision of the court is incorrect. residential building from L, mother of C. C filed an action
for Ownership and Recovery of Possession against M,
Under the law, "In unlawful detainer cases, the alleging that she is the owner of the residential building
defendant is necessarily in prior lawful possession of the and that M failed to pay the rent. She prayed that she be
property but his possession eventually becomes declared as owner of the residential building and that M
unlawful upon termination or expiration of his right to be ordered to vacate the same and pay the rent in
possess." In other words, the entry is legal but the arrears. M contended that C is not the owner of the
possession thereafter became illegal. Additionally, the residential building and claimed that A owns the building,
Rules of Court requires the filing of such action within a having bought the same together with the land on which
year after the withholding of possession. Meaning that it stands.
Page 47
Is the contention of M correct? daughter-in-law, and her family were advised to relocate
but, in the meantime, allowed to use a portion thereof. Z
erected a house thereon over plaintiffs’ objections and,
despite demands, refused to vacate and surrender
Suggested Answer:
possession of the subject property.
No, the contention of M is not correct.
Z averred that the complaint stated no cause of action,
It is settled that once a contract of lease is shown to exist considering that X has no standing to question their
between the parties, the lessee cannot by any proof, possession of the subject property as she had already
however strong, overturn the conclusive presumption donated her portion in favor of Y. Z failed to impugn the
that the lessor has a valid title to or a better right of validity of plaintiffs’ ownership over the subject
possession to the subject premises than the lessee. The property. Z appealed. The RTC granted its appeal. X and
Court expounded on the rule on estoppel against a Y filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
tenant and further clarified that what a tenant is Hence the filing of petition in the CA. Z filed a motion to
estopped from denying is the title of his landlord at the dimiss. The CA granted Z’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
time of the commencement of the landlord-tenant Hence the instant petition filed by X alone.
relation.
Did the CA err in dismissing outright the petition?
In this case, it is not improbable that at the timeM leased
the residential building from L, he was aware of the
circumstances surrounding the sale of the two parcels of
land and the nature of the respondents’ claim over the Suggested Answer:
residential house. Yet, the petitioner still chose to lease
the building. Consequently, the petitioner is now Yes, the CA erred in dismissing the petition.
estopped from denying the respondents’ title over the
residential building. Article 487 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that any
of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment,
Therefore, the contention of M is not correct.
without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners
as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be
instituted for the benefit of all.
In this case, both X and Y are co-plaintiffs in the

ejectment suit. Thus, they share a commonality of
interest and cause of action as against respondents.
Notably, even the petition for review filed before the CA
indicated that they are the petitioners therein and that
Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer the same was filed on their behalf. Hence, the lone
signature of X on the verification attached to the CA
petition constituted substantial compliance with the
Fernandez vs. Villegas rules. Similar to the rules on verification, the rules on
SCRA 548 August 20, 2014 forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate
By: Ambrosio, S. the orderly administration of justice; hence, it should not
be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to
Bar Question: subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objectives. The
requirement of strict compliance with the provisions on
X and Y filed a Complaint for Ejectment against Z seeking certification against forum shopping merely underscores
to recover possession of a parcel of land. X and Y averred its mandatory nature to the effect that the certification
that they are the registered owners of the subject cannot altogether be dispensed with or its requirements
property. The house was destroyed by typhoon "Cosme," completely disregarded. It does not prohibit substantial
X transferred to a nipa hut on the same lot, while Z, Y’s
Page 48
compliance with the rules under justifiable As a holder of the Torrens title over the subject land, OB
circumstances as also in this case. is entitled to its possession.
Hence, the CA erred in dismissing the petition. Principle:
A title issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all

the attributes of property ownership, which necessarily
includes possession.
Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Abadilla vs Obrero
G.R. No. 210855, December 09, 2015 Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
By: Bulanon, J.
Penta Realty Corporation vs. Ley Construction and
Development Corporation
G.R. No. 161589, September 24, 2014
Bar Question: By: Capao, H.
OB file a complaint for forcible entry against AB. OB

alleged that they are the registered owner of the land Bar Question:
covered by TCT No. 67890 issued on 2007 and asserts
that their ownership actually dates back to 1991. They A leased a property to B. Subsequently, they entered into
also occupied the subject land since that date and built a contract to sell regarding the leased property, paid by
structures for commercial purposes and declared it for installments within one year. B stopped paying the
tax purposes. While AB contended that the subject land installments. A filed a complaint for ejectment against B
was sold by the petitioners to AB’s father, evidenced with before the MeTC because of B’s failure to pay the rentals
an unregistered deed of absolute sale. and vacate the premises. The MeTC ruled in favor of A
and found that B's lawful possession of the property had
Rule on who has the right to possess the subject land. been, by virtue of the contract of lease, become unlawful
when the B failed to comply with its obligation to pay the
monthly rentals.
Suggested Answer: Did the MeTC correctly exercise its jurisdiction over the
case?
OB has the right to possess the subject land.
Suggested Answer:
A certificate of title is evidence of indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the Yes, the MeTC correctly exercised its jurisdiction, having
person whose name appears therein. A title issued under the exclusive original jurisdiction over accion interdictal.
the Torrens system is entitled to all the attributes of
property ownership, which necessarily includes A suit for unlawful detainer is premised on Section 1,
possession. Rule 70, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, of which there are
two kinds, namely: (1) that filed against a tenant, and (2)
There is preponderance of evidence that OB and his that brought against a vendee or vendor, or other person
family were the party in peaceable, quiet possession of unlawfully withholding possession of any land or building
the subject land before the petitioner committed the after the expiration or termination of the right to hold
complained acts of spoliation. While AB’s claim of possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.
possession was based on the unsubstantiated and
unreliable affidavits. In the case at bar, the MeTC correctly exercised its
authority in finding for A as the plaintiff. In unlawful
As between the petitioner's deed of absolute sale and detainer, the possession was originally lawful but
the respondents' TCT No. 67890, the latter must prevail. became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the
right to possess; hence, the issue of rightful possession is
Page 49
decisive for, in the action, B is in actual possession and In the case at bar, petitioner’s complaint shows that the
the A's cause of action is the termination of B's right to required jurisdictional averments, so as to demonstrate
continue in possession. a cause of action for forcible entry, have all been
complied with. It alleges that petitioner, as the original
Therefore, the MeTCcorrectly exercised its jurisdiction owner’s was in prior physical possession of the subject
over the case. land but was eventually dispossessed of a portion
thereof by respondent who, through force and
intimidation, gained entry into the same and, thereafter,
Topic: Forcible Entry And Unlawful Detainer erected a building thereon.
Homer C. Javier vs. Susan Lumontad Furthermore, ejectment cases fall within the original and
G.R. No. 203760 December 3, 2014 exclusive jurisdiction of the first level courts under
By: Casanares, A. Section 1, Rule 70, of the Rules of Court. Even in cases
where the issue of possession is closely intertwined with
the issue of ownership, the first level courts maintain
Bar Question: exclusive and original jurisdiction over ejectment cases,
as they are given the authority to make an initial
Since Y’s birth, his family has lived in the residential determination of ownership for the purpose of settling
house erected on the land owned by his father. Upon his the issue of possession. Such adjudication however is
father’s death, Y, together with his mother, continued merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an
their possession over the same. However, Z gained entry action between the same parties involving title to the
into the subject land and started to build a building on property. It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of
portion of their land, despite Y’s vigorous objections and ownership.55
protests. Y filed a forcible entry complaint against Z
before the MTC. Z alleged that she took possession of the Given that a forcible entry complaint had been properly
said portion not as an illegal entrant but as its owner. The filed before the MTC, the CA thus erred in ordering the
MTC dismissed the complaint however it was reversed by remand of the case to the RTC for trial on the merits
the RTC. On appeal by Z, CA set aside the RTC ruling that
it does not make a case for forcible entry but another
action cognizable by the RTC, an action for recovery of Topic: Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus
possession and ownership.
Macapagal vs. People
717 SCRA 425
Is the CA correct in setting aside the ruling of RTC? By: Lucabon, M.
Bar Question:
Suggested Answer:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45,
No. In one case, the Court held that in forcible entry, the
on November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision
complaint must necessarily allege that one in physical
possession of a land or building has been deprived of that finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa for
possession by another through force, intimidation, misappropriating, for her own benefit, the total amount
threat, strategy or stealth. The plaintiff must allege that of P 800,000.00 .Failure to comply Procedural
he, prior to the defendant’s act of dispossession by force, requirements under Rule 45 is fatal of the Petition.
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, had been in prior A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
physical possession of the property. This requirement is
Rules of Court must contain a certified true copy or
jurisdictional, and as long as the allegations demonstrate
a cause of action for forcible entry, the court acquires duplicate of the assailed decision, final order or
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Judgement. Failure to comply such requirement shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Page 50
On March 21, 2000, Spouses Alindog filed a civil case for

annulment of real estate mortgage and certificate of sale
Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer on the ground that they purchased the subject property
Suarez vs.Emboy Jr. from Gutierrez way back in September 1989 but was
718 SCRA 677 unable to secure a certificate of title in their names due
By: Lucabon, M. to deception of a certain Gonzales. Eventually, they
found out that the property had already been mortgaged
The CA granted the Petition for Review filed by Mr. and to Sps. Marquez
Mrs. Felix Emboy ,Jr. And Marilou Emboy-Delantar
(respondents), seeking to reverse the decisions of the Meanwhile, Anita filed an ex-parte petition for the
Regional trial court (RTC), Branch 12, and Municipal trial issuance of a writ of possession claiming that the same is
Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 3, of Cebu City, rendered ministerial on the court’s part following the
on February 26, 2008 and September 25, 2006. consolidation of her and her husband’s title over the
The nature of a party of entering a land defines the subject property. RTC granted the same. Spouses Alindog
determination of the Cause of Action. When the sought the issuance of a TRO and/or a writ of preliminary
complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of forcible entry injunction. RTC issued a 72-hour TRO but did not extent
or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how it to a full 20-day TRO.
entry was effected or how and when dispossession
After further proceedings on the injunction case, the RTC
started, the remedy should either be an accion
issued a writ of preliminary injunction against Spouses
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.
Marquez based on initial evidence that Spouses Alindog
appeared to have a right to be protected. CA found no
grave abuse of discretion on the RTC’s part when it
Topic: Grave Abuse of Discretion issued the injunctive writ.
Marquez vs.Sps. Alindog Whether or not RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion
G.R. No. 184045, January 22, 2014 when it issued the injunctive writ which enjoined Sps.
By: Yapsangco, R.
Marquez from taking possession of the subject property.
Bar Queston: In June 1998, Anita Marquez extended a

loan in the amount of P500,000 to a certain Gutierrez. As
security therefore, Gutierrez executed a Deed of Real Suggested Answer:
Estate Mortgage over the subject parcel of land, which
was duly annotated. Yes, It is a settled rule that the buyer in a foreclosure sale
becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased
Since Gutierrez defaulted in the payment of his loan if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after
obligation, Anita sought the extra-judicial foreclosure of the registration of the sale. As such, he is entitled to the
the subject property. At the public auction sale held on possession of the said property and can demand it at any
January 19, 2000, Anita emerged as the highest bidder. time following the consolidation of ownership in his
Upon Gutierrez’s failure to redeem the same property name and the issuance to him of a new transfer
within the prescribed period therefor, title was certificate of title. However, Section 33, Rule 39 of the
consolidated in the name of Spouses Marquez with an Rules of Court provides that the possession of the
annotation of adverse claim in the names of Spouses mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in
Alindog. Said adverse annotation was copied from an an extra-judicial foreclosure unless a third party is
earlier annotation made only after the subject property’s actually holding the property by adverse title or right.
mortgage to Spouses Marquez.
Page 51
In this case, it is clear that the issuance of a writ of the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the
possession in favor of Spouses Marquez, who had discretion conferred upon them. Grave abuse of
already consolidated their title over the extrajudicially discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious
foreclosed property, is merely ministerial in nature. The and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of
general rule as herein stated – and not the exception jurisdiction. In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion
found under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules – should may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings
apply since Spouses Alindog hinged their claim over the and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported
subject property on their purported purchase of the by substantial evidence. This requirement is clearly
same from its previous owner, i.e., Spouses Gutierrez expressed in Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court
(with Gutierrez being the original mortgagor). which provides that "[i]n cases filed before
Accordingly, it cannot be seriously doubted that Spouses administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
Alindog are only the latter’s (Sps. Gutierrez) successors- deemed established if it is supported by substantial
in-interest who do not have a right superior to them. evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion."
Topic: Certiorari Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds
that the CA correctly granted respondents’ certiorari
Ayungo vs. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation
G.R. No. 203161 February 26, 2014 petition since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion
By: Yapsangco, R. when it held that Ayungo was entitled to disability
benefits notwithstanding the latter’s failure to establish
Bar Question: his claim through substantial evidence. n this case, the
NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the LA’s
Petitioner claimed that he is entitled to permanent total
findings that Ayungo is entitled to disability benefits on
disability benefits since his employment aggravated his
the ground that Beamko and Eagle Maritime assumed
Hypertension and CAD and despite the disclosure in his
the risk of liability of his weakened condition.
PEME that he had Diabetes Mellitus, Beamko and Eagle
Maritime assumed the risk of liability arising from his In sum, the CA rightfully granted respondents' certiorari
weakened medical condition. Respondent contended petition as the NLRC findings and the conclusions
that the illnesses were not work-related under 2000 reached thereby are tainted with grave abuse of
POEA-SEC. LA rendered in favor of the Petitioner. NLRC discretion considering that Ayungo's claim for disability
affirmed. On appeal, CA set aside NLRC ruling as Ayunco benefits remains unsupported by substantial evidence
failed to show the causal connection between his illness and is even anathema to the provisions of the 2000
and the work for which he was contracted. Hence, this POEA-SEC.
petition
Whether or not the CA erred in granting respondents’

petition for certiorari, thereby setting aside the NLRC’s Topic: Certiorari
decision holding that Ayungo was entitled to disability
Naval vs. Comelec
benefits. 729 SCRA 299,
By: Magallon, S.
Suggested Answer:
No, to justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of

Bar Question:
certiorari, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that
Page 52
X was elected and served as member of a sanggunian, By: Magallon,S.

Second District, of Province A twice. Congress passed a
law reapportioning A’s districts. X was again elected and Bar Question:
served as a member of the sanggunian, now Third X owned a piece of land. Y occupied X’s property out of
District, of the same province but with slightly less X’s tolerance. X later on sold the property to Z. Z
number of constituents than the previous District. X ran demanded that Y vacate the property, but he refused.
again for the same position. Y, a candidate for Thus, Z filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. Y asserted
sanggunian, Third District of A, sought to cancel X’s that the complaint was defective for failing to allege the
certificate of candidacy because X violated the three- exact metes and bounds of the property.
term limit rule. Comelec resolved the issue in Y’s favor. X
filed a petition for Certiorari against Comelec under Rule Who has the better right to possess the property?
64.
Will the petition lie?

Suggested Answer:
Z does. The only issue in an ejectment case is the physical

Suggested Answer: possession of real property―possession de fact and not
possession de jure. But where the parties to an
No. The petition of certiorari will not issue.
ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts
Article X, Section 8, 1987 Constitution states that the may pass upon that issue to determine who between the
term of office of elective local officials, except barangay parties has the better right to possess the property. But
officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three adjudication of the issue on ownership is only
years and no such official shall serve for more than three provisional.
consecutive years. Jurisprudence also dictates that a
In this case, Z proved by preponderance of evidence that
petition for certiorari against actions of the Comelec is
he was the likely owner of the piece of land.
confined only to instances of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to patent and substantial denial of due Thus, Z is the rightful possessor as one of the attributes
process because the Comelec is presumed to be the most of ownership.
competent in matters falling within its domain.
In the case at bar, X clearly violated the three-term limit

rule when he ran for the same position with the same Topic: Certiorari
constituents (albeit with slightly fewer number of
Silvero vs Silvero
constituents) for a fourth time. Comelec’s decision GR No. 186589, Jul 18, 2014
upheld the constitution and was not made to patently By: Viagedor, J.
and substantially deny X due process.
Bar Question:
Thus, petition for certiorari will not lie.
Z died without leaving a will. She was survived by her
legal heirs, namely: X (husband), Y, (son) A (son), B (son),
Topic: Ejectment C (son), D (daughter), and E (daughter). Subsequently, an
intestate proceeding for the settlement of her estate was
Dela Cruz vs. Capco filed by X.
719 SCRA 291,
Page 53
However, X was removed as administrator and in his Bernardino Dionisio (Dionisio) filed a complaint5 for
instead, Y, was designated as the new administrator. X forcible entry with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
filed a Petition for Certiorari and the CA granted X's Cardona, Rizal against Mario Ocampo (Mario) and Felix
application and issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Y Ocampo (Felix). Dionisio sought to recover the
filed a petition for Certiorari before the SC under Rule 65 possession of a portion of his property situated in Dalig,
contending that CA acted with grave abuse of discretion Cardona, Rizal, alleging that Mario and Felix built a
in issuing Resolution and in granting injunctive relief piggery thereon without his consent. Mario denied
against him. Dionisio’s allegation, claiming that the disputed parcel of
land is owned by his wife, Carmelita Ocampo who
However, Y defied CA’s resolution and thus, prompting Y inherited the same from her father. Mario further
to file a petition for indirect contempt but it was denied. claimed that they have been in possession of the said
parcel of land since 1969.
Whether the CA committed error in dismissing X’s
indirect contempt petition on the ground of pendency of Dionisio died subsequently. The heirs of Dionisio
special civil action filed by Y. (respondents), filed a complaint for recovery of
possession with the MTC. They averred that Dionisio
Suggested Answer: thereafter took possession of the subject property and
was able to obtain a free patent covering the subject
Yes. property.
The pendency of a special civil action for certiorari The MTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that
instituted in relation to a pending case does not stay the Dionisio failed to establish prior possession of the parcel
proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of of land.
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order. Rule 65, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules makes this Is the judgment in the forcible entry case barred the
clear: The court in which the petition is filed may issue action for the recovery of possession of the parcel land.
orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant
a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary Suggested Answer:
injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties
pending such proceedings. No.
The petition shall not interrupt the course of the A judgment rendered in a forcible entry case will not bar
principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a an action between the same parties respecting title or
writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against ownership because between a case for forcible entry and
the public respondent from further proceeding in the an accionreinvindicatoria, there is no identity of causes
case. This is because "an original action for certiorari is of action. Such determination does not bind the title or
an independent action and is neither a continuation nor affect the ownership of the land; neither it is conclusive
a part of the trial resulting in the judgment complained of the facts therein found in a case between the same
of. parties upon a different cause of action involving
possession.
A forcible entry case only involves the issue of possession

Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer over the subject property while the recovery of
possession case puts in issue the ownership of the
Ocampo vs Heirs or Bernardino Dionisio subject property and the right to possess the same.
G.R. No. 191101, October 1, 2014
By: Bautista, Sheryl Yu The decision in the forcible entry case is conclusive only
as to the MTC’s determination that the petitioners are
not liable for forcible entry since the respondents failed
Bar Question:
Page 54
to prove their prior physical possession; it is not

conclusive as to the ownership of the subject property.
Besides, Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court
expressly provides that a "judgment rendered in an
action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive
with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise
bind the title or affect the ownership of the land."
Page 55

Prov Rem Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prov Rem Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prov Rem Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the elements of a forcible entry case?

What are the elements of a forcible entry case?

What is the difference between a forcible entry case and an action for recovery of possession?

What is the difference between a forcible entry case and an action for recovery of possession?

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE - RECOLETOS SCHOOL OF LAW S.

Bar Question: Topic: Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

Suggested Answer: PEZA was created by virtue RA No. 7916 or ‘Special

Is PEZA correct by availing the petition for declaratory

Suggested Answer: Bar Question:

TESDA vs. Commission on Audit CAUSING VS COMELEC

Bar Question: Bar Question:

No there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Suggested Answer:

Hence, EC’s petition should be dismissed. Suggested Answer:

Principle: No, A was not correct in filing a petition for certiorari

Topic: Review of Judgments of COMELEC and COA

Mr. X was employed as a wiper for the vessel owned by

Yes, the action should be granted.

A Notice of Permanent Closure filed by Aris with the

As a result, the Corporations filed a motion to dismiss the Bar Question:

Dr. Joel Mendez vs People of the Philippines

the proceedings in the lower court. A petition

In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling

On August 29, 2007, PS Inc. filed before the CA an original

Is the Petition for Certiorari was timely filed?

Lui Enterprises, Inc. and ZuelligPharma Corporation

accomplishment of its tasks, and, overall, to enhance the

Was the Court of Appeals correct in granting Bons’

A company physician examined him. Bahia paid for his

Topic: Certiorari Is grave abuse of discretion present in the case?

Tesoro, et al. vs. Metro Manila Retreaders, et al.

The law provides that the purpose of certiorari is to

For its part, B pointed out that petitioners freely resigned

Did the Court of Appeals commit any error in reversing

No. Indirect contempt is defined by and punished under

Topic: Contempt In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the

improper purpose. preliminary prohibitory injunction. Judge R issued an ex-

In a case decided, the SC ruled that a Motion for

attributable to the fault or negligence of the party

Can the period to file a petition for review be extended

TENAZASVS R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT

For having found to be engaged in illegal international

The 60 day limitation may be relaxed only for the most

PLDT vs. OCAMPO

Company A, B and C entered into an agreement whereby Topic: Certiorari Case

Thus, the said action is premature and not proper.

Suggested Answer: City filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of

P was an oiler in the vessel of M/T Delphina filed for total

OSG argued that P is not entitled compensation higher

and not whether the NLRC ruling is intrinsically correct or

J was not included on the list for recommendation for the

Suggested Answer: Bar Question:

No, the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in

the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned

possession was issued the property remained in the Bar Question:

The members of X occupied parcels of land in the cities

issued therein are enforceable only within their Suggested Answer:

PRINCIPLE: A petition for prohibition will prosper only if

Whether R correctly availed himself of a petition for

Yes. A petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to