PROHIBITION
1. BONCODIN vs. NECU
- A petition for prohibition is a preventive remedy and as a rule, does not lie to
restrain an act that is already fait accompli (an accomplished fact).
- The principle of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an inflexible
rule. It may be dispensed with in the present case, because its application
would not constitute a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. The issues here are
purely legal and judicial intervention has been shown to be urgent.
2. ERMITA vs. ALDECOA-DELORINO
- Prohibition lies against judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, but not
against legislative or quasi-legislative functions.
- The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court within the limits of
its jurisdiction to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels.
When the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, petitioners remedy is
an ordinary action for nullification.
ON CERTIORARI
Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for
reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an
opportunity to correct its assigned errors.7 This rule, however, is not without
exceptions.
The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (a) where
the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo had no jurisdiction; (b) where
the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed
upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the
lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question
and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the
petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner
was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a
criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief
by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte, or in which
the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one
purely of law or where public interest is involved.8 (emphasis supplied)
The present case involves the constitutionality and implementation of an executive
issuance involving tariff rates and, as alleged by petitioner, the Governments
commitments under the AFTA. Clearly, the filing of a motion for reconsideration may
be dispensed with following exceptions (c ) and (i) in the above enumeration in Siok
Ping Tang.
MANDAMUS
1. PAGODA PHILIPPINES INC. vs. UNIVERSAL CANNING INC.
- Ordinarily, mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act, the writ
shall issue in instances of gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or palpable
excess of authority, equivalent to denial of a settled right to which petitioner is
entitled; and when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. This
Court has recognized that a judges decision to refuse to act on account of some
disqualification is not conclusive, and his competency may be determined on an
application for mandamus to compel him to act.
2. CASTRO vs. GLORIA
- The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the
appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling
under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice
for review. It is settled that non-observance of the doctrine results in lack of a
cause of action, which is one of the grounds allowed by the Rules of Court for the
dismissal of the complaint.
The doctrine is not absolute. There are instances when it may be dispensed with
and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately. Among these
exceptions are: 1) When the question raised is purely legal; 2) when the
administrative body is in estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently
illegal; 4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; 5) when the claim
involved is small; 6) when irreparable damage will be suffered; 7) when there is
no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8) when strong public interest is
involved; and 10) in quo warranto proceedings.
- Truly, a petition for mandamus is premature if there are administrative remedies
available to petitioner. But where the case involves only legal questions, the
litigant need not exhaust all administrative remedies before such judicial relief
can be sought. In Cortes v. Bartolome, a case involving a petition for mandamus,
we ruled that while it may be that non-judicial remedies could have been
available to respondent in that he could have appealed to the then Secretary of
Local Government and Community Development and thereafter to the Civil
Service Commission, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies need
not be adhered to when the question is purely legal. This is because issues of law
cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer. Appeal to the
administrative officer would only be an exercise in futility.
- Certiorari is the remedy to correct errors of judgement which are grave and
arbitrary and not mandamus.
3. AED vs. DOTC
- It is well-established in our jurisprudence that only specific legal rights are
enforceable by mandamus, that the right sought to be enforced must be certain
and clear, and that the writ will not issue in cases where the right is doubtful. Just
as fundamental is the principle governing the issuance of mandamus that the
 duties to be performed must be such as are clearly and peremptorily enjoined by
law or by reason of official station.
- A rule long familiar is that mandamus never issues in doubtful cases. It requires
a showing of a complete and clear legal right in the petitioner to the performance
of ministerial acts. In varying language, the principle echoed and reechoed is that
legal rights may be enforced by mandamus only if those rights are well-defined,
clear and certain. Otherwise, the mandamus petition must be dismissed.
- Although Rule 65 does not specify any period for the filing of a petition for
certiorari and mandamus, it must, nevertheless, be filed within a reasonable
time. As the revised Rules now stand, a petition for certiorari may be filed within
60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed.
Reasonable time for filing a petition for mandamus should likewise be for the
same period. The filing by the AEDC of its petition for mandamus 20 months after
its supposed right to the project arose is evidently beyond reasonable time and
negates any claim that the said petition for the extraordinary writ was the most
expeditious and speedy remedy available to AEDC.
CERTIORARI
1. TAGLE vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK
- A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction
or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Such cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited
to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.
For a petition for certiorari to prosper, the essential requisites that have to
concur are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer
has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
- The phrase "without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack
of authority or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a
cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular
matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. "Excess of
jurisdiction" occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any
statutory authority; or results when an act, though within the general power of
a tribunal, board or officer (to do) is not authorized, and invalid with respect to
the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the
exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. While that of "grave
abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or
personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
- In the present case, there is no question that the Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dismissing petitioner petition is already a disposition on the merits.
Therefore, said Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals, are in the nature of a
final disposition by the appellate court, and which, under Rule 45 of the Revised
Rules of Court, are appealable to this Court via a Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
- From the words of Rule 45, it is crystal that decisions (judgments), final orders
or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of
the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a
petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process
over the original case.
In the case at bar, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals were final
orders. They were not interlocutory because the proceedings were terminated;
and left nothing more to be done by the appellate court. There were no remaining
issues to be resolved. Consequently, the proper remedy available to petitioner
Alfredo then was to file before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the assailed Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals, and not a special civil action for certiorari.
From the foregoing discussion, it is fairly obvious that the third requisite for a
petition for certiorari is wanting, that is, there must be no appeal or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The availability to
petitioner Alfredo of the remedy of a petition for review on certiorari from the
assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals effectively barred his right to resort
to a petition for certiorari.
- Basic is the rule that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal
is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and
adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of
the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. In this case, appeal was
not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy. Moreover, petitioner
Alfredo failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the
general rule as to make available to him a petition for certiorari in lieu of making
an appeal.
- The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative
or cumulative.
2. REPUBLIC vs. PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS INC.
- The well-established rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable
condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. A
motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC
should be seasonably filed as a precondition for pursuing any further or
subsequent recourse; otherwise, the order, resolution or decision would become
final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt thereof. The rationale
for the rule is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify
 such errors or mistakes it may have committed before resort to courts of justice
can be had.
- Of course, the rule is not absolute and jurisprudence has laid down exceptions
when the filing of a petition for certiorari is proper notwithstanding the failure
to file a motion for reconsideration. Thus, resort to the courts under Rule 65 is
allowed even without a motion for reconsideration first having been filed:
a. where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no
jurisdiction;
b. where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised
and passed upon in the lower court;
c. where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any
further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the
petitioner or the subject matter of the petition is perishable;
d. where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be
useless;
e. where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency
for relief;
f. where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the
granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
g. where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
h. where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object; and,
i. where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.
However, petitioner failed to show that this case falls under any of the
exceptions. According to petitioner, a motion for reconsideration would be
inadequate and useless since the labor agency is bent on immediately proceeding
with the execution, levy and sale on execution of the subject properties. But it is
not for petitioner to determine whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration
should be dispensed with. As enunciated in the case of Sim v. National Labor
Relations Commission:
It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never
demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of
judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it
only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law
and the Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of
whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. To dispense with
the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show
a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so, which petitioner failed
to do.
- It must be emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration and filing it
on time are not mere technicalities of procedure. These are jurisdictional and
mandatory requirements which must be strictly complied with. Thus, failure to
file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before availing oneself of the
special civil action for certiorari is a fatal infirmity.
3. DOMONDON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
- The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua
non for the filing of a petition for certiorari, its purpose being to grant an
opportunity for the court a quo to correct any actual or perceived error
attributed to it by a re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the
case.
The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as where
the order is a patent nullity because the court a quo had no jurisdiction;
where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised
and passed upon in the lower court; where there is an urgent necessity for the
resolution of the question, and any further delay would prejudice the
interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the
action is perishable; where, under the circumstances, a motion for
reconsideration would be useless; where the petitioner was deprived of due
process and there is extreme urgency for relief; where, in a criminal case, relief
from an order of arrest is urgent and the grant of such relief by the trial court is
improbable; where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of
due process; where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had
no opportunity to object; and where the issue raised is one purely of law or
where public interest is involved.[
The Court finds that the issue raised by petitioner had been duly raised and
passed upon by the Sandiganbayan Third Division, it having denied
consolidation in two resolutions; that the issue calls for resolution and any
further delay would prejudice the interests of petitioner; and that the issue
raised is one purely of law, the facts not being contested. There is thus ample
justification for relaxing the rule requiring the prior filing of a motion for
reconsideration.
4. ALMUETE vs. PEOPLE
- In People v. Court of Appeals, this Court reversed petitioners acquittal by the CA
as it was made with grave abuse of discretion. This Court explained that an
acquittal via a Petition for Certiorari is not allowed because "the authority to
review perceived errors of the trial court in the exercise of its judgment and
discretion x x x are correctible only by appeal by writ of error." Thus, in filing a
Petition for Certiorari instead of an appeal, petitioner availed of the wrong
remedy. Thus:
In this case, the RTC rendered judgment finding all the accused, respondents
herein, guilty of the crime charged based on the evidence on record and the law
involved, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment as provided
for in P.D. No. 705, in relation to Articles 304 and 305 of the Revised Penal Code.
They had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law to overturn the decision
as, in fact, they even filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on its
merits, and for the nullification of the promulgation of the said decision. Upon
the trial courts denial of their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners had
the right to appeal, by writ of error, from the decision on its merits on questions
 of facts and of law. The appeal of the petitioners in due course was a plain, speedy - It has been held that what is determinative of the propriety of certiorari is the
and adequate remedy. In such appeal, the petitioners could question the findings danger of failure of justice without the writ, not the mere absence of all other
of facts of the trial court, its conclusions based on the said findings, as well as the legal remedies. The Court is satisfied that the denial of the Petition for Certiorari
penalty imposed by the court. It bears stressing that an appeal in a criminal case by the Court of Appeals will not result in a failure of justice, for petitioners rights
throws the whole case open for review and that the appellate court can reverse are adequately and, in fact, more appropriately addressed in the appeal.
any errors of the trial court, whether assigned or unassigned, found in its
judgment. However, instead of appealing the decision by writ of error, the
respondents filed their petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the decision
of the trial court on its merits. They questioned their conviction and the penalty
imposed on them, alleging that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt for the
crime charged, the evidence against them being merely hearsay and based on
mere inferences. In fine, the respondents alleged mere errors of judgment of the
trial court in their petition. It behooved the appellate court to have dismissed the
petition, instead of giving it due course and granting it.

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

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

5. ESPIRITU vs. TANKIANSEE

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

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

the appropriate remedy because it assails not only the Resolution but also the
two Orders.