Administrative Law - Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition

7/27/2019 Administrative Law - Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/administrative-law-certiorari-mandamus-and-prohibition 1/92

C. Finality of Administrative Functions



Switchmen's Union of North America v.National Mediation Board

• A dispute having arisen between two labor organizations asto representation of employees of a carrier for collectivebargaining, the services of the National Mediation Boardwere invoked pursuant to Sec 2, Ninth, of the Railway LaborAct.

• One of the organizations sought to be the representative of all yardmen, the other to be the representative of certainsmaller groups.

• The Board directed an election, designating all yardmen asparticipants. The first organization was chosenrepresentative, and the Board certified the result to thecarrier. The second organization and some of its membersbrought suit in the federal District Court challenging theBoard's determination as to participants in the election andseeking cancellation of the certificate.



That the District Court was without jurisdictionto review the action of the Board in issuing thecertificate:

• 1. The language of the Railway Labor Act and the legislative history of § 2,Ninth, thereof support the conclusion that the intent of Congress was that theBoard's certification of representatives for collective bargaining should not bejudicially reviewable.

• (a) Constitutional questions aside, it is for Congress to determine how the

rights which it creates shall be enforced.

• (b) Where Congress has not expressly authorized judicial review, the type of problem involved and the history of the statute in question are relevant indetermining whether judicial review may nonetheless be supplied.

• 2. The broad grant to the federal district courts, by Jud.Code § 24(8), of original jurisdiction of all "suits and proceedings arising under any lawregulating commerce," cannot sustain jurisdiction in this case

• 3. That the Board's certification of representatives of employees for collectivebargaining is conclusive does not, of itself, make such certification judiciallyreviewable.

• 4. Shields v. Utah Idaho Central R. Co., 305 U. S. 177, distinguished.



FORTICH v. CORONA

• The strikers protested the March 29, 1996 Decision of the Office of the President which approved theconversion of a one hundred forty-four (144)-hectare

land from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutionalarea.

• This led the Office of the President, to issue the so-called “Win-Win” Resolution on November 7, 1997,substantially modifying its earlier Decision after it hadalready become final and executory.



ISSUES

• respondents, opposed the petition and prayed that it be dismissed outright on the following grounds:

• (1) The proper remedy of petitioners should havebeen to file a petition for review directly with theCourt of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of theRevised Rules of Court;

• WON the final and executory Decision can still be

substantially modified by the “Win-Win” Resolution



HELD

remedy prescribed in Rule 43 : present petition containsan allegation that the challenged resolution is

• “patently illegal” and was issued with “grave abuse of discretion” and “beyond his jurisdiction” when saidresolution substantially modified the earlier which hadlong become final and executory.



SC ruled: remedy prescribed in Rule43 is inapplicable

present petition contains an allegation that thechallenged resolution is

• “patently illegal” and was issued with “grave abuse of discretion” and “beyond his jurisdiction”

------ when said resolution substantially modified theearlier which had long become final and executory.



This particular case involves an error of jurisdiction

• An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or aquasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction,

or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

• This error is correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65, as what the petitionershave correctly done.



WON the final and executory Decision can stillbe substantially modified by the “Win-Win”Resolution

• When the Office of the President issued the Order datedJune 23,1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 finaland executory, as no one filed a motion for reconsiderationthereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-

open the case, more so modify its Decision.

• Thus, the act of the Office of the President in re-opening thecase and substantially modifying its March 29,1996Decision which had already become final and executory,was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legalprecept that accord finality to administrativedeterminations.



SOTTO v. RUIZ

The petitioner in this case is the proprietor of theweekly periodical, The Independent. The respondent was, on February 10, 1921, The Acting Director of the

Bureau of Posts. The latter refused to forward asregistered mail, a copy of The Independent, on theground that it contained libelous matter.



• Attorney-General advised the Director of Posts that “thematter printed on the enclosed postal card is obviouslyintended to reflect injuriously upon the character of a public

official by giving publicity to a supposed telegram whichmight be interpreted by a certain portion of the public as anattempt on the part of said official to interfere with the dueadministration of justice.”

• However, the Honorable George R. Harvey ruled that, “To

say that the publication of an official telegram from onepublic official to another is printed or written matter of alibelous character, when such telegram contains noattack upon any person, is manifestly arbitrary andunjust and is not based upon any reasonable

interpretation of the law.” The propriety of a periodicaldistributing copies of a confidential telegram sent by oneofficial to another may well be questioned. But to do so isnot libelous per se.



The rule is that courts will not interfere with thedecision of the Director of Posts unless they are

clearly of opinion that it was wrong



Uy v. Palomar

• Uy is an agent of the PCSO. For the Grand ChristmasSweepstakes Draw, the PCSO directed its agents toundertake every means possible to achieve its sales goal. Assuch, Uy devised a “Grand Christmas Bonus Award” plan,

where the sub-agents who sell winning tickets, and thepurchasers of the tickets themselves, in addition to theprize money from PCSO, would win certain items.

• Pursuant to this, Postmaster Palomar issued a Fraud Orderand ordered Uy’s parcels containing sweepstakes tickets

and other personal mail to be refused for acceptance formailing, on the basis of the Postal Law which proscribes theuse of the mail system to conduct lotteries, gift enterprises,schemes, etc. Uy filed a complaint challenging the issuanceof the fraud order.



WON the Postmaster’s decision (to issue a fraudorder) can be reviewed by the Court

• The Postal Law contains no provision for judicialreview of the decision of the Postmaster General.

• The Court, however, in Reyes v. Topacio has stated that the action of the Postmaster General is subject torevision by the courts in case he exceeded hisauthority or his act is palpably wrong.



• The Court, recognizes the availability of judicial reviewover the action of the Postmaster General,notwithstanding the absence of statutory provision for

judicial review of his action.• The silence of the Congress is not to be construed as

indicating a legislative intent to preclude judicialreview



Antique Sawmill, Inc. v. Zayco (1966)

Appeal if not perfected within the reglemantary periodshall be dismissed outright since

• such failure amounts to rendering the judgment final and

executory; and• Certification of the record record on appeal cannot restore the

jurisdiction which has already been lost.

The AO which prescribes the time within which the

appeal must be perfected has the force and effect of law.



Manuel v. Villena (1971)

• The power of the Director of Forestry to approve ordeny applications for a tree farm permit is executive innature. As such, in general the courts refuse to

interfere with the proceedings undertaken by theadministrative bodies or officials in the exercise of administrative functions.

• EXCEPT: when “the board or official has gone beyondhis statutory authority, exercised unconstitutionalpowers or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regardto his duty or with grave abuse of discretion” or that the decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake.



Sam Miguel Corp. v. Secretary of Labor (1975)

• "The purpose of judicial review is to keep theadministrative agency within its jurisdiction andprotect substantial rights of parties affected by its

decisions".• "The courts may declare an action or resolution of an

administrative authority to be illegal

• because it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory

provision of the law or• because it is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious"



Flores v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga (2005)

• THE RULE:

• Where there are still available remedies within theadministrative machinery against the action of an

administrative board, body, or officer, the intervention of thecourts can be resorted to by him only after having exhaustedall such remedies.

• PURPOSE:

• The administrative body, if given the chance to correct its

mistake or error, may amend its decision on a given matter anddecide it properly.

• Prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court.



CSC v. DBM

• The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies invoked byrespondent applies only where there is an express legal provisionrequiring such administrative step as a condition precedent to takingaction in court.

• As petitioner is not mandated by any law to seek clarification from theSecretary of Budget and Management prior to filing the present action,its failure to do so does not call for the application of the rule.

• As for the rule on hierarchy of courts, it is not absolute. A direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction may be allowed wherethere are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specificallyset out in the petition.

• Petitioner justifies its direct filing of the petition with this Court “as thematter involves the concept of fiscal autonomy granted to [it] as well asother constitutional bodies, a legal question not heretofore determinedand which only the Honorable Supreme Court can decide with authorityand finality”



D. Modes of JudicialReview of AdministrativeDecisions



A. CERTIORARI

• appeal to the Supreme Court from judgment or finalorder of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, andthe Regional Trial Court

• Under Rule 45 (ROC)

• It is not a matter of right but of sound discretion

• It must only raise questions of law which must be

distinctly set forth



When shall it be filed?

• the petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days fromnotice of the judgment or final order or resolutionappealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s

motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in duetime after notice of the judgment

• the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant anextension of thirty (30) days only within which to filethe petition.



Who shall pay the Docket and otherlawful fees

• petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket andother lawful fees to the clerk of court of the SupremeCourt and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at

the time of the filing of the petition



What does the petition contain?

• (a) the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverseparty as respondent , without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents;

• (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment orfinal order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial

or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof wasreceived;

• (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and thereasons or argument s relied on for the allowance of the petition;

• (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certifiedtrue copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and suchmaterial portions of the record as would support the petition; and

• (e) (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided inthe last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42.

• petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court beingindicated as such by the petitioner.



dismissal or denial of petition?

Failure of the petitioner to comply with any of theforegoing requirements:

• regarding the payment of the docket and other

lawful fees,

• deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition,

• and the contents of and the documents which

should accompany the petition

shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.



• Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny thepetition on the ground that the appeal:

• is without merit,

• is prosecuted manifestly for delay,

• or that the questions raised therein are toounsubstantial to require consideration



Is review discretionary?

• a review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicialdiscretion, and will be granted only when there arespecial and important reasons therefor.



• The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of lawand that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the RevisedRules of Court are mutually exclusive and not

alternative or cumulative.



When petition may be given duecourse?

• (a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the SupremeCourt, or has decided it in a way probably not inaccord with law or with the applicable decisions of theSupreme Court; or

• (b) When the court a quo has so far departed from theaccepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, orso far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, asto call for an exercise of the power of supervision.



• The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from adecision of the CA is a petition for review on

certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.

• On the other hand, if the error subject of the

recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by a quasi-judicialofficer or agency with grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, theproper remedy available to the aggrieved party is apetition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the saidRules



B. PETITION FOR REVIEW

Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court

It is a mode of appeal from the decision or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies exercising quasi-judicial

functions filed with the Court of Appeals pursuant toBP Bilang 129 Section 9 and Revised Rules of Court Rule 43.



WHERE TO APPEAL?


The appeal must be taken to the Court of Appeals withinthe period and manner provided. It may contain

questions of fact, law, or mixed.



WHAT IS REQUIRED?

The petitioner has exhausted all administrativeremedies

A final order or decision has been rendered by the

administrative body in the exercise of its quasi-judicialfunctions.



WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONSINVOLVED?

QUESTION OF FACT

• When the issue arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts; or when the query necessarily invitescalibration of the whole evidence consideringmainly the credibility of witnesses, existence andrelevancy of specific surrounding circumstances,their relation to each other and to the whole world

and the probabilities of the situation.



QUESTION OF LAW

• When the issue arises from doubt or difference of opinion as to what the law is on a certain state of facts

and which does not call for an examination of theprobative value of the evidence presented by theparties.



WHEN IS THE APPEALPERFECTED?


• Appeal should be submitted 15 days from:

• Award, judgment, final order or resolution

• Date of its last publication (if required by law to be published)

• Denial of the motion for new trial

• Motion for Reconsideration

• Only 1 MR shall be filed.

• Upon payment of the docket fee before the expiration of thereglementary period (15 days), the CA may grant an additional period of 15 days to file the petition for review.

• No further extension shall be granted unless there is compelling reasonto grant it.



HOW APPEAL TAKEN?

Section 5 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court

• Filing of verified petition for review (7 copies)

•

Proof of service of a copy to the adverse party andcourt a quo or agency

• Pay to the Clerk of Court the docket fee and otherlawful fees

• Exemption to pay may be granted but if denied deposit for cost within 15 days from notice of denial.



WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF THEPETITION?

• Section 6 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court

• It shall contain the following:

• state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading

the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents;• contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and

the grounds relied upon for the review;

• be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or acertified true copy of the award, judgment, final order orresolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of

such material portions of the record referred to therein and othersupporting papers; and

• contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as providedin the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42.



WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF THEPETITION?

• Should state the following:

• That the petitioner has not commenced any other action involvingthe same issue and parties in any other tribunal

• If there is, he must state the status.

• If he comes to know that such an action is pending before anytribunal, he must inform the tribunals within 5 days there from.

• The certification should be signed by the petitioner himself.

• state the specific material dates showing that it was filedwithin the period fixed herein.



WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TOCOMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS?


• SHALL BE SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR THE DISMISSALTHEREOF.



WHAT MAY BE THE ACTION ONTHE PETITION?


• The CA may:

• require the respondent to file a comment on the petitionwithin 10 days from notice.

• Dismiss the petition if patently with merit, prosecutedmanifestly for delay, unsubstantial question not worth torequire consideration.



WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF THECOMMENT?


• The comment shall:

• Filed within 10 days from notice

• 7 copies

• Certified true copies of material portions of the record referred toas evidence

• Include:

• Point out insufficiencies or inaccuracies in petitioner's statement of

facts and issues; and• State the reasons why the petition should be denied or dismissed.

• A copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner, and proof of suchservice shall be filed with the Court of Appeals.



WHAT IS DUE COURSE?


• The CA:

• If the court finds prima facie evidence

• it may give due course to the petition

• it shall dismiss the same.



WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE RULE?

All that is necessary to sustain the findings is that saidfindings are supported by substantial evidence.

This is a limitation upon the scope of judicial review in

administrative cases. Under this rule the courts are not supposed to reassess evidence, determine itspreponderance on either side, and substitute its ownfindings for those of the administrative agency.



WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TOTHIS RULE?

1. When the factual findings of the administrative agencyand the initial fact-finding agency are conflicting

2. When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,surmise, or conjectures;

3. When the inference made by the quasi-judicial agencyfrom its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, orimpossible

4. When there is grave abuse of discretion in the

appreciation of facts

5. When the administrative agency, in making its findings,goes beyond the issues of the case, and such findings arecontrary to the admissions of parties



WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TOTHIS RULE?

6. When the judgment of the administrative agency ispremised on a misapprehension of facts

7. When the administrative agency fails to notice certain

relevant facts which will justify a different conclusion

8. When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting

9. When the findings are conclusions without citation of thespecific evidence on which they are based; and

10. When the findings are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by theevidence on record.



WHAT IS THE TRANSMITTAL OFRECORDS?


• The Court of Appeals within 15 days after the noticethat the petition has been given due course:

• Require to transmit the original or a legible certified true copyof the entire record of the proceeding under review.

• The Court of Appeals may require or permit subsequent correction of or addition to the record. (8a)



WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF APPEAL?


• The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, finalorder or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the

Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon suchterms as it may deem just.



SUBMISSION FOR DECISION


• IF GIVEN DUE COURSE:

• Set the case for oral argument

• Require the parties to submit memorandum within a period of 15 days from notice

• The case shall be DEEMED submitted for decisionupon filing of the last pleading or memorandum asrequired by the CA.



PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,MANDAMUS & PROHIBITION



PETITION FORCERTIRARI



Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:

• Section 1. Petition for certiorari.

• When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or hisjurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, andadequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrievedthereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging thefacts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annullingor modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, andgranting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

• The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of thejudgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadingsand documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a s worncertification of non-forum shopping as provided in the thirdparagraph of section 3, Rule 46.



What is a petition for Certiorari

• Is a special civil action directed against any tribunal,board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicialfunction alleged to have acted

-without jurisdiction,

-in excess of jurisdiction,

-or grave abuse of discretion

=or errors in jurisdiction



• sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errorsof jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Also granted to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. It is available where it appears that thecourt is proceeding in excess or outside of its jurisdiction.

•

GENERAL RULE: A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION MUSTBE FILED BEFORE THE REMEDY OF CERTIORAI MAY BEAVAILED OF for one should give the court or tribunal achance to correct itself before resorting to theextraordinary remedy of Certiorari.



Purpose of certiorari.

• To annul or modify the questioned act or ruling.

• to prevent unlawful and oppressive exercise of legalauthority

• To provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice.

• To prevent irreparable damage and injury to a party wherethe trail judge has capriciously and whimsically exercisedhis judgment.

•

There may be danger of clear failure of justice.

• Where an ordinary appeal would simply be inadequate torelieve a party from the injurious effects of the judgment complained of.



Requisites of certiorari

1. It is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercisingjudicial or quasi-judicial functions.

• As a rule, judicial or quasi-judicial function means thedetermination of what the law is, and what the legal rights

of the parties are.

• It has been held that the determination of whether an act islegal or not is essentially a judicial function.

2. The tribunal, board or officer has acted without or inexcess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse discretion.

• Covers only errors of jurisdiction.



(definition)

• Error of judgment -one which the court may commit inthe exercise of its jurisdiction which is reviewable onlyby an appeal or petition for review as mode of appeal.

• Error of Jurisdiction- the act complained of is issued bythe court, officer or quasi-judicial body without or inexcess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion

which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.



• Without jurisdiction- the tribunal, board or officeracted with absolute want of jurisdiction, because nostatute confers such jurisdiction.

• Excess of Jurisdiction- where the tribunal, board orofficer has jurisdiction, as granted by law, but hastranscended the same or acted without statutory

authority.



• Grave Abuse of Discretion- implies such capricious andwhimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in anarbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion orpersonal hostility, so apparent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a visual refusal toperform the duty enjoined or to act at all incontemplation of law.



3. There is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy inthe ordinary course of law.

• If appeal is available, certiorari cannot be resorted to.

• It is the danger of failure of justice without the writ not the mere

absence of all legal remedies, that must determine the proprietyof certiorari.

• GENERAL RULE: certiorari may not be used as a substitute for alapsed appeal, the rule may be relaxed when its rigid applicationwill result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice.

•

If, however, the remedy of appeal had already been lost and theloss was occasioned by petitioner’s own neglect or error in thechoice of remedies, certiorari will not lie as a substitute or a toolto shield the petitioner from the adverse consequences of suchneglect or error.



When certiorari may issue

• Certiorari is more discretionary and it is guided by allthe circumstances of each particular case as the endsof justice may require.



• A few examples of when it would issue:

• Against an interlocutory order where it was issued with graveabuse of looklll;discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction and delay in the review of the order until the appealfrom the decision in the main case would not afford the partyadversely affected by said order a speedy, plain and adequateremedy.

•

An order denying a motion to dismiss is ordinarily not a propersubject of a petition for certiorari. However, where the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion or capriciously andwhimsically, as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, certiorari andprohibition will lie since it would be useless and a waste of timeto go ahead with the proceedings in the trial court.



When writ may not issue

• correction of errors in the evaluation or appreciationof the evidence and finding based thereon

• Questions of fact.

• Errors of judgment (correctable through appeal)

• Error of fact



PETITION FOR

PROHIBITION




Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition.

• When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer orperson, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerialfunctions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or withgrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequateremedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby

may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts withcertainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding therespondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matterspecified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as lawand justice may require.

•The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of allpleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and asworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the thirdparagraph of section 3, Rule 46.



What is a Petition for prohibition

• Preventive remedy

• Another method of judicial review of administrativeacts or decisions of quasi-judicial agencies.

• Like in Certiorari, only issues affecting jurisdictionmay be resolved and not on facts which are yet to beresolved in the administrative proceeding.



Function

• To prevent a tribunal, board or officer from usurpingor exercising jurisdiction or power which the law doesnot vest in any of them. (To restrain the doing of someact about to be done)

• To prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderlyadministration of justice

•

Not intended to provide a remedy for acts alreadyaccomplished except where the wrong act iscontinuing or the questioned act is a nullity.



PETITION FOR

MANDAMUS




Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:Section 3. Petition for Mandamus

• When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or personunlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the lawspecifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, orstation, or unlawfully excludes another from the use andenjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and

there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in theordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file averified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts withcertainty and praying that judgment be rendered commandingthe respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specifiedby the court, to do the act required to be done to protect therights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the

petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.

• The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forumshopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.



What is a Petition for Mandamus

• Mandamus literally means “we command”

• Proper remedy when it can be shown that there is neglect on the part of a tribunal or officer in the performance of anact which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting

from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludesanother from the use and enjoyment of a right or office towhich such other is entitled.

• It is simply a command to exercise a power alreadypossessed and to perform a duty already imposed.

• GENERAL RULE: imposed to compel the doing of aministerial act, ALTHOUGH: it may issue to compel theexercise of discretion but not the discretion itself.



Requisites for Mandamus to issue

1. Applicant must have a clear legal right to the thingdemanded.

The right must be well defined, clear and certain and

one that is founded or granted by law.

2. The corresponding duty of the defendant to performthe required act must also be clear and specific.



3. The duty to be enforced by mandamus must be suchas are clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law or byreason of official station.

4. The respondent must have the power to perform theact concerning which the application for mandamus ismade.

5. There must be unreasonable delay in the performanceof the duty, notwithstanding demand to perform.



When Mandamus may not lie

• To compel a course of conduct.

• To compel an official to do anything which is not hisduty to do

• Neither confers powers nor impose duties

• To compel performance of an act prohibited by law.

• To require anyone to fulfill contractual obligations.



COMMON REQUISITES

AMONG THE THREEPETITIONS



1. The petition must be verified

• A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein

are true and correct.

2. When to file

• Not later than 60 days from the notice of the judgment,order or resolution sought to be assailed.



3. Contents of petition

• Full names and actual address of all the petitioners and respondents.

• Concise statement of the matters involved

•

Filed in 7 copies

4. Non- forum shopping certification

5. Court may issue injunctive relief

• May issue status quo order or temporary restraining order tomaintain uncontested status of things or for preservation of the right of parties pending such proceedings.



E. LIMITATIONS OF

REVIEW

A. DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW AND FACT



Law

• any system of regulations to govern the conduct of thepeople of a community, society or nation.

• a solemn expression of the legislative will.



Fact

• Incident, act, event, or circumstance. A fact issomething that has already been done or an action in

process. It is an event that has definitely and actuallytaken place, and is distinguishable from a suspicion,innuendo, or supposition. A fact is a truth as opposedto fiction or mistake.

•

an actual thing or happening, which must be proved at trial by presentation of evidence and which isevaluated by the finder of fact (a jury in a jury trial, orby the judge if he/she sits without a jury).



Question of Fact

• when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth orfalsehood of alleged facts

•when the query needs evaluation of evidence

Question of Law

• there is doubt or difference of opinion as to what the law ison a certain set of facts

• which does not call for the examination of the probativevalue of the evidence presented by the parties.



CASES

1 (10 h l 210



1. Reyes vs. Reyes (107 phil 210,1960)

• a petition to review the decision of the majority of themembers of the Workmen's Compensation Commission,denying a claim for compensation of petitioners for thedeath of Victoriano Santiago, driver of a jeepney operatedby the respondent

• Deceased was the driver of an autocalesa belonging torespondent. There is a specific instruction given by therespondent to the deceased to follow the route prescribedby the Public Service Commission. He was murdered andfound outside of the prescribed route.

•

Issue: whether or not the death of Victoriano Santiagoarose out of and was occasioned in the course of hisemployment (necessary for claim of compensation of theheirs)



• Commission presumed that since he was found outside the prescribed route,he thus willfully violated the prescribed rules and it cannot be said to havedone in the course of employment.

• However, Section 43 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended bySection 24 of Republic Act 772, establishes the following presumptions:

In any proceeding for the enforcement of the claim for compensation under thisAct, it shall be presumed in the absence of substantial evidence to thecontrary —

1. That the claim comes within the provisions of this Act;

2. That sufficient notice thereof was given;



.3. That the injury was not occasioned by the of thewillful intention of the injured employee to bringabout the injury or death of himself or of another;

4. That the injury did not result solely from theintoxication of the injured employee while on duty;and

5. That the contents of verified medical and surgicalreports introduced in evidence by claimants forcompensation are correct.



• The evidence necessary to overcome the presumption thenmust do more than create doubt or set up noncompensablealternative explanations of the accident. It must beevidence such as a reasonable mind must accept as

adequate to support a conclusion. No such evidence waspresented by the herein respondent.

• Inasmuch as the law establishes the presumption that thedeceased followed the law and regulations, it wasincumbent upon respondent to prove that he did otherwise,

or that hr failed to comply with the regulations. In otherwords it was incumbent upon respondent herein to provethat the deceased voluntarily went out of his route anddrove his jeepney towards the province of Quezon.



• There being no such evidence submitted by therespondent, i.e., that the going of the deceased toQuezon province was made voluntarily by him, wemust conclude, pursuant to the presumption that

every person performs his duty or obligation, that hewas forced by circumstances beyond his will to gooutside his ordinary route; in other words that whiledriving in the city he must have been forced to go out and drive to the province of Quezon on the threats of

the malefactors guilty of assaulting and killing himagainst his (deceased) will.

Ab iti P it (G R N L 21335



Aboitiz vs Pepito (G.R. No. L-21335December 17, 1966)

• Between the night of November 30, and the earlymorning of December 1, 1961, Demetrio Pepito, a crewmember of Petitioner m/v P. Aboitiz, disappearedtherefrom while said vessel was on voyage. On

December 26, 1961, petitioner received a letter fromthe wife of Pepito stating that because Demetriodisappeared from the vessel, they believe he is alreadydead.

• respondents, filed with Regional Office No. 8,Department of Labor, Cebu City, a notice and claim forcompensation, asking for death benefits.



• Petitioner’s contention: Pepito disappeared while off duty and that they do not know if he purposelyjumped and swam ashore.

•

without hearing, the Regional Administrator issued anaward for death benefits to respondents, planted uponthe ground that "the right to compensation of theclaimant has not been controverted by respondent within the period provided for by law."

• Issue: whether or not petitioner was able to argue that Pepito was still not dead?



• Relevant Law: Legal implications — such as right tocompensation, succession, the legal status of the wife — areso important that courts should not so easily be carried tothe conclusion that the man is dead. The result is that deathcannot be taken as a fact. Non-controversion incompensation cases, as in the case of pleadings in ordinarycivil cases, simply means admission of facts, not conclusions of law.

• Here, the mere failure to controvert the statement that Demetrio Pepito is believed to be "dead" or "deceased"because he "was lost" or was "reported missing", does not

import an admission that the man is actually dead, but that he was just lost or missing. We, therefore, rule that petitioner's non-controversion admits but the fact that Demetrio Pepito was lost or missing, but certainly is not anadmission of the actual fact of death.



• At that time, no presumption existed that DemetrioPepito was dead. The boa was not lost. This opens up anumber of possibilities. Because nothing is certain.Nobody knows what has happened to him. He could

have transferred to another vessel or watercraft. Hecould even have swam to safety. Or he could have died.Or worse, he could have taken his own life.



THANK YOUUUUUU!!!

Administrative Law - Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition

Documents

Transcript of Administrative Law - Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition