Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 65 Certiorari

1. Notes on Civil Procedure by Lawrence Villamar
Source: “Revised Rules of Procedure Annotated” (Estopia, 2013)
RULE 65
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS
A. CERTIORARI
• WHEN to file: NOT later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order or resolution. If motion
for reconsideration/new trial is filed, recokoning of reglamentary period is from notice of denial
of the motion.
◦ NO extension to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no
case exceeding fifteen (15) day. (Yoche v Yoche, 2007)
◦ The period as specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay violative of right of parties to
speedy disposition. Hence, it is inextendible, except for exceptional circumstaces ot he
ground of ustice and equity.
• WHERE to file: If petition relates to act of MTC/corporation/board/an officer/person, filed
with appropriate RTC. May also be filed with CA or Sandiganbayan; if involving quasi-judicial
agency, with CA unless otherwise provided by law. In election cases (MTC/RTC), exclusively
with COMELEC in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
• Pertinent pleadings and documets must be attached to the petition (Sec. 1 (2), Rule 65)
• FUNCTION: To keep inferior courts within the bounds of its urisdiction or to prevent it from
committing such grave abue of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
• As a rule, grant of petition for certiorari does NOT interrupt the course of the principal case,
unless coupled with a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction. Public respondent to proceed
within ten (10) days from filing of petition for certiorari, absent TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction
• Court may dismiss petition if it finds the same to be patentl without merit or prosecuted
manifestly for delay or questions raised are too unsubstantial. It my impose motu propio, based
on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinar sanctions/measures on erring lawyers for patently
dilatory/umeritorious petitions for certiorari.
• The remedy against interlocutory resolutions of the Court of Appeals is certiorari under Rule 65
(as provided in Sec 1 (b) Rule 41)
• The grant of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Grave abuse of discretoion: were an an act I performed wit a capricious or whimsical exercise
of judgment equivalent to lack of juridiction. Abuse must be patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty/ power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reaon of
pasion or hostility.
• Question of law should be filed with Supreme Court, NOT Court of Appeals. The Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction xxx over cases in wich only question of law is involved (Hanjin
vs CA, 2006)
• Petition for certiorari against quasi-judicial agency cognizable only by the Court of Appeals (via
petition for review on certiorari, under Rule 43).
• Certiorari is proper only if the party has no plai, speedy, adequate remed in the course of law.
Remedies of appeal uder Rule 45 and an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 are
mutually exclusive (Nippon vs CA, 2004). Certiorari is not subtitute to a lost appeal, as
proscribed under Rule 45. If there are other existing remedy, it must NOT be plain, speedy and

2. Notes on Civil Procedure by Lawrence Villamar
Source: “Revised Rules of Procedure Annotated” (Estopia, 2013)
adequate.
• There are occasions when the Supreme Court treated a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as
one filed under Rule 45 (provided, that it was filed within prescribed time and attended by
special circumstances).
• Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as may be established
by law (Sec 1, Art VIII of the 1987 Constitution), includes determiation of grave abuse of
discretion and issuance of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus etc.
• Certiorari will only issue to correct errors of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment not enough; it
must be capricious, arbitrarym abd whimsical exercise of power. Abuse of discretion must be
patet/exercised arbitrarily/despotically.
• Motion for reconsideration a condition precedent before certiorari may be granted, except:
◦ when the court pronounced its decision final and excecutory.
◦ Motion for conideration is no longer necessary/other special circumstances warrant
immediate and direct action (i.e. bail has been granted/accused free to roam)
◦ when the court a quo had no jurisdiction
◦ when question raised in certiorari has been duly raised and passed upon by lower court/sa,e
as those raised and passed upon in lower court
◦ Whe there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay
would preudice interest of government/petitioner/subject matter is perishable
◦ MR is useless, under the circumastances
◦ Petitioner deprived of due process/extreme urgency of relief is improbable
◦ Proceedings ex parte
◦ Petitioner has no opportunity to object
◦ Purely question of law
▪ A question of law does not call for examination of the probative vale of evidence
presented, the truth of falsehood of facts being admitted/doubt concerns the correct
application of law and jurisprudence o the matter. When there is a dispute as to fact, the
questio of whether or notthe conclusio draw there from is correct, is a question of law.
◦ Public interest is involved (e.g. employer-employee relationship impressed with public
interest)
◦ Error is patent nullity
◦ Judicial intervention is urgent/great and irreparable damage
• No grave abuse of discretio may be attributed to a court simply becaue of its alleged wrongful
appreciation of fact a evidence. Certiorari will NOT issue for errors of procedure or mistake in
the findings or conclusion of the lower court. Review of evidence can not be secured in petitio
for CPM.
Petition for Review under Rule 45 Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
Proper remedy of a part aggrieved by decision of
the CA as continuation of appellate process over
original case
Original case
No plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law

3. Notes on Civil Procedure by Lawrence Villamar
Source: “Revised Rules of Procedure Annotated” (Estopia, 2013)
Promptly relieves petitioner from inurious effects
of judgments/acts of lower court/agency1
• Interlocutory orders, if found to be with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction, may be remedied with special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.
• The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not n iro0n-clad dictum and it may be relaxed whe
exceptional and compelling circumstance so warrant the exercise of the [Supreme Court's]
primary jurisdiction. Technical rules on substitution of parties should not be nrrowly construed
as to prevent the court from deciding the case on its merit.
B. PROHIBITION
• Requisites:
◦ tribunal/corporation/board/an officer/person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specfically enjoins as duty/ unlawfully excludes another from the use or
enjoyment of a right or office
◦ No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
◦ verified petition in the proper courts alleging facts with certainty/praying judgments be
rendered commanding the resposndent to desist from further proceedings in the action or
matter specified therein/incidental relief
• Grounds for petition
◦ without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction
◦ with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
◦ no appeal/ any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
• Certified true copy of the judgment must accompany the petition as well as copies of pertinent
pleadings and documents, and sworn certificate of non-forum shopping (Sec 3 Rule 46)
C. MANDAMUS
• A mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act
◦ EXCEPTION: Instances of(1) gross abuse of discretion , manifest injustice or palpable
excess of authority, equivalent to denia of settled right and (2) no other plain, speedy,
adequate remedy
• Commission with ministerial duty subject to mandamus
◦ A purely ministerial act is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts
in a prescribed manner in obedience ot the mandate of legal authority WITHOUT regard to
or the exercise of his own judgment upon propriety or impropriety of the act done.
◦ Mandamus is the preoper remedy to compel a corporation to grant monthly salary and
holiday pay
◦ Mandamus is NOT the proper to compel a school to enroll a student for academic
deficiencies because this involves the exercise by the school of discretion under academic
freedom
1 The grant of petition for certiorari does not stop the assailed principal proceedings, unless ith TRO or writ of prelimary
injunction.

4. Notes on Civil Procedure by Lawrence Villamar
Source: “Revised Rules of Procedure Annotated” (Estopia, 2013)
◦ Mandamus will not lie against the President or Congress due to principle that the judiciary
is a co-equal branch
◦ Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is generally fatal to an action for mandamus
• If petition is sufficient in form and substance, court will order respondent to comment within
ten (10) days from receipt of copy. Respondent may not file a motion to dismiss but the court
may require filing of reply and other responsive pleading
• Court may issue injunctive relief (TRO or writ of preliminary injunction) with the grant of the
petition. #