Hipos, Sr.

vs Bay respondent excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
G.R. Nos. 174813-15 March 17, 2009 office to which the latter is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.3
FACTS: On 15 December 2003, two Informations for the crime of rape and
one Information for the crime of acts of lasciviousness were filed against As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an
petitioners Darryl Hipos, Jaycee Corsiño, Arthur Villaruel and two others officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus
before Branch 86 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, acting as a will not issue to control the exercise of discretion by a public officer where
Family Court, presided by respondent Judge Bay. Private complainants the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to
AAA1 and BBB filed a Motion for Reinvestigation asking Judge Bay to any manner in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that
order the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to study if the proper is to be exercised and not that of the court.4
Informations had been filed against petitioners and their co-accused.
Judge Bay granted the Motion and ordered a reinvestigation of the cases. In the case at bar, the act which petitioners pray that we compel the trial
The Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution on the court to do is to grant the Office of the City Prosecutor’s Motion for
reinvestigation affirming the Informations filed against petitioners and their Withdrawal of Informations against petitioners. In effect, petitioners seek to
co-accused in Criminal Cases No. Q-03-123284-86. The Resolution was curb Judge Bay’s exercise of judicial discretion. There is indeed an
signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Raniel S. Cruz and approved by City exception to the rule that matters involving judgment and discretion are
Prosecutor Claro A. Arellano. beyond the reach of a writ of mandamus, for such writ may be issued to
On 3 March 2006, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Lamberto C. de Vera, compel action in those matters, when refused.5 However, mandamus is
treating the Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the Case as an appeal of the never available to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a
10 August 2004 Resolution, reversed the Resolution dated 10 August particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the
2004, holding that there was lack of probable cause. On the same date, exercise of either.6 In other words, while a judge refusing to act on a
the City Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Informations before Judge Motion to Withdraw Informations can be compelled by mandamus to act on
Bay. On 2 October 2006, Judge Bay denied the Motion to Withdraw the same, he cannot be compelled to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or
Informations in an Order of even date. deny such Motion. In the case at bar, Judge Bay did not refuse to act on
Without moving for a reconsideration of the above assailed Order, the Motion to Withdraw Informations; he had already acted on it by
petitioners filed the present Petition for Mandamus. denying the same. Accordingly, mandamus is not available anymore. If
petitioners believed that Judge Bay committed grave abuse of discretion in
Issue: CAN THE HON. SUPREME COURT COMPEL RESPONDENT the issuance of such Order denying the Motion to Withdraw Informations,
JUDGE BAY TO DISMISS THE CASE THROUGH A WRIT OF the proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a Petition for
MANDAMUS BY VIRTUE OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE OFFICE OF Certiorari against the assailed Order of Judge Bay.
THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY FINDING NO PROBABLE
CAUSE AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILING A Sanchez vs Lastimoso
MOTION TO WITHDRAW INFORMATION? G.R. No. 161735               September 25, 2007

Held: Mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, Facts: On January 27, 1998, the National Police Commission
corporation, board, officer or person, immediately or at some other (NAPOLCOM) issued Resolution No. 98-037 considering as absorbed into
specified time, to do the act required to be done, when the respondent the police force, among others, those who had been discharged by virtue
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically of pending administrative or criminal cases but who were later acquitted or
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or when the had their cases dismissed, and who subsequently filed petitions for

1
reinstatement that were not acted upon by the PNP. Then, on April 3, of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to
1998, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution No. 98-105 affirming and confirming adjudicate. Thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to secure a
the absorption into the PNP, effective on January 27, 1998, of the 126 ex- legal right but to implement that which is already established. Unless the
PC constables named in the list submitted by Director Edgar C. Galvante right to relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will not issue.
of the PNP Directorate for Personnel and Records Management
(DPRM). Petitioners Sanchez and Meteoro are in numbers 90 and 122, Social Justice Society vs Jose L. Atienza Jr.
respectively, of the Galvante list. G.R. No. 156052 March 07, 2007
Subsequently, on May 28, 1998, NAPOLCOM Commissioner Rogelio A.
Pureza issued a Memorandum to then Chief of the PNP Santiago Alino for Facts: On November 20, 2001, The Sangguniang Panglunsod of Maynila
the issuance of absorption orders to the 45 PC constables included in the enacted Ordinance No. 8027. Hon. Jose L. Atienza, jr. approved the said
initial batch of those covered by the PNP Board Resolutions. Petitioner ordinance on November 28, 2001. and it became effective on December
Sanchez is in number 45 of that list. As no absorption order had yet been 28, 2001. Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the area of Pandacan and Sta.
issued by the Chief of the PNP, the constables in the list requested the Ana from industrial to commercial and directed the owners and operators
assistance of the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local of businesses disallowed under Section 1 to cease and desist from
Government (DILG). On July 29, 1998, the Office of the Secretary of the operating their businesses within six months from the date of effectivity of
DILG sent a memorandum to respondent Roberto T. Lastimoso, then the the ordinance. Among the businesses situated in the area are the so-
Chief of the PNP, endorsing the constables’ entreaties and requesting for called Pandacan Terminals of the oil companies Caltex, Petron and Shell.
a feedback thereon. During the pendency of the said petition, NAPOLCOM
issued Resolution No. 99-061 on April 19, 1999 recalling the earlier However, on June 26, 2002, the City of Manila and the Department of
Resolution No. 98-105. The recall was based on the Commission’s finding Energy entered into a memorandum of understanding with the oil
that the list submitted by Galvante was not actually of the constables companies in which they agreed that :scaling down of Pandacan Terminals
whose applications for absorption were indorsed for approval, but of those was the most viable and practicable option. Under the memorandum of
whose applications were still to be reviewed, evaluated and disposed of. In understanding, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy permits
other words, the 126 named in the list were still to be interviewed and their the Oil Companies to continuously operate in compliance with legal
applications to be deliberated upon by the PNP Special Committee. requirements, within the limited area resulting from the joint operations and
the scale down program.
Issue: WON Sanchez and Meteoro have a cause of action for mandamus
to compel the respondent to absorb them in the PNP.
The Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified the memorandum of understanding
Decision: The remedy of mandamus is employed only to compel the in Resolution No. 97. In that resolution, the Sanggunian declared that the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to require anyone memorandum of understanding was effective only for a period of six
to fulfill a discretionary one. The issuance of the writ is simply a command months starting July 25, 2002. Thereafter, on January 30, 2003, the
to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already Sanggunian adopted Resolution No. 13 extending the validity of
imposed. In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential Resolution No. 97 to April 30, 2003 and authorizing Mayor Atienza to issue
that, on the one hand, petitioner has a clear legal right to the claim that is special business permits to the oil companies. Resolution No. 13, s. 2003
sought and that, on the other hand, respondent has an imperative duty to also called for a reassessment of the ordinance.
perform that which is demanded of him. Mandamus will not issue to
enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable Issue: Whether or not respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce
or over which a substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals.

2
And Whether or not the June 26, 2002 memorandum of understanding and action. The Sanggunian informed Mayor Dickson that the matter falls
the resolutions ratifying it can amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8027. under the jurisdiction of his office since it (Sanggunian) has already
passed and approved Resolution No. 183-2004, which authorized Mayor
Held: The Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as Dickson to enforce the provision against subleasing of stalls in the public
City Mayor of Manila, to enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the market.
governance of the city. One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief
executive of the city, he has the duty to put into effect Ordinance No. 8027 Mayor Dickson, in response, informed the Sanggunian that the stalls were
as long as it has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or negated by the constructed under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme, which meant
courts. that the petitioners had the right to keep their stalls until the BOT
agreement was satisfied. He then asked the Sanggunian if provisions were
made to sanction lessees under the BOT scheme similar to the provision
On the other hand assuming that the terms of the memorandum of
against subleasing (Item No. 9) in the contract of lease.
understanding were contradictory with Ordinance No. 8027, the resolutions
which ratified it and made it binding on the City of Manila expressly gave it
Thereafter, Bandrang wrote another letter to the Sanggunian, praying and
full force and effect only until April 30, 2003. There is nothing that legally
recommending to Mayor Dickson, by way of a resolution, the cancellation
hinders respondent from enforcing Ordinance No. 8027. Wherefore the
of the lease contract between the Municipality and petitioners for violating
Court Ordered Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., as mayor of the city of Manila to
the provision on subleasing. She suggested that after which, the stalls can
immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027.
be bided upon anew and leased to the successful bidder. She made the
suggestion because Mayor Dickson did not act on her concerns even after
LAYGO vs. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SOLANO the Sanggunian referred them to him.
G.R. No. 188448 January 11, 2017
The Sanggunian once again referred the letter of Bandrang, together with
Facts: The case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari from the Decision of a copy of Resolution No. 183-2004, to Mayor Dickson for appropriate
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 103922 and its Resolution action. The Sanggunian opined that they no longer need to make any
dated June 19, 2009. recommendation to Mayor Dickson because Resolution No. 183-2004
already empowered and authorized him to cancel the lease contracts
In July 2005, Aniza Bandrang (Bandrang) sent two letter-complaints to pursuant to its pertinent provisions.
then Municipal Mayor Santiago O. Dickson and the Sangguniang Bayan of
Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, informing them of the illegal sublease she entered Mayor Dickson, however, did not act on the letter of Bandrang and on the
into with petitioners Rodolfo Laygo and Willie Laygo over Public Market referrals of the Sanggunian. Thus, Bandrang filed a Petition for Mandamus
Stalls No. 77-A, 77-B, 78-A, and 78-B, which petitioners leased from the against him before the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Municipal Government. Bandrang claimed that petitioners told her to (RTC). Subsequently, she amended her petition to implead petitioners.
vacate the stalls, which they subsequently subleased to another. Bandrang Bandrang alleged that despite already being aware of the violations of the
expressed her willingness to testify against petitioners if need be, and lease contracts of petitioners with the Municipality, Mayor Dickson still
appealed that she be given priority in the future to lease the stalls she refused to enforce the provisions of the lease contracts against subleasing.
vacated. Bandrang concluded that Mayor Dickson's inaction can only be construed
as an unlawful neglect in the performance and enforcement of his public
In August 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan endorsed the letter of Bandrang duty as the Chief Executive of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. Thus, she sought
and a copy of Resolution No. 183-2004 to Mayor Dickson for appropriate an order directing Mayor Dickson to immediately cancel the lease between

3
the Municipal Government and petitioners over Public Market Stall Nos.
77-A, 77-B, 78-A, and 78-B, and to lease the vacated stalls to interested On July 23, 2007, the RTC issued an Order directing the substitution of
persons. then incumbent mayor Hon. Philip A. Dacayo (Mayor Dacayo) as
respondent in place of Mayor Dickson.
In his Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses, Mayor Dickson
claimed that under the principle of pari delicto, Bandrang had no right to Bandrang filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 8, 2008
seek remedy with the court as she was guilty herself in leasing the market arguing that no genuine factual issues existed to necessitate trial.
stalls. Mayor Dickson insisted that he acted in accordance with law by Bandrang reiterated the violation of petitioners against subletting in their
referring the matter to the Sanggunian for appropriate action. He also lease contracts with the Municipal Government.
argued that Bandrang had no cause of action against him and that she
was not a real-party-in-interest. He likewise asserted that the subject of the ISSUES: Whether or not mandamus is proper
mandamus was not proper as it entailed an act which was purely Whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 183-2004 be
discretionary on his part. applied against petitioners despite the absence of a contract of lease
between them and the Municipal Government
In his Pre-Trial Brief, Mayor Dickson elaborated that Bandrang had no
cause of action because the stalls were on a BOT scheme covered by an Held:
ordinance. During the hearing, Mayor Dickson presented a copy of the 1. No. Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of competent
resolution of the Sanggunian indicating that there was a directive to all stall jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some
owners in the public market of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya to build their own inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring
stalls after a fire gutted the public market. the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results
from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from
On the other hand, petitioners denied that they were the lessees of Stalls operation of law. As a rule, mandamus will not lie in the absence of any of
77 A and B and 78 A and B. They clarified that Clarita Laygo (Clarita), their the following grounds: [a] that the court, officer, board, or person against
mother, was the lessee of the stalls by virtue of a BOT scheme of the whom the action is taken unlawfully neglected the performance of an act
Municipality. At the time they entered into a contract of lease with which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust, or
Bandrang, it was agreed that the contract was subject to the consent of the station; or [b] that such court, officer, board, or person bas unlawfully
other heirs of Clarita. The consent, however, was never given; hence, excluded petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a right or office
there was no subleasing to speak of. Even on the assumption that there to which he is entitled. Neither will the extraordinary remedy of mandamus
was, petitioners maintained that the prohibition on subleasing would not lie to compel the performance of duties that are discretionary in nature.
apply because the contract between the Municipality and Clarita was one
under a BOT scheme. Resolution No. 183-2004 only covered stall holders Applying the foregoing distinction, we find that the Petition for Mandamus
who violated their lease contracts with the Municipal Government. Since must fail because the acts sought to be done are discretionary in nature.
their contract with the Municipal Government was not a lease contract but
a BOT agreement, Resolution No. 183-2004 would neither apply to them, 2.Yes. There is preponderant evidence that the contract between
nor be enforced against them. Further, even granting arguendo that the petitioners and the Municipal Government is one of lease. The type of
prohibition would apply, petitioners claimed that there was no more ground contract existing between petitioners and the Municipal Government is
for the revocation of the lease because the subleasing claimed by disputed. The Municipal Government asserts that it is one of lease, while
Bandrang had ended and the subsequent receipt by the Municipality of petitioners insist that it is a BOT agreement. Both parties, however, failed
payments ratified the contract with petitioners. to present the contracts which they purport to have. It is likewise uncertain

4
whether the contract would fall under the coverage of the Statute of Frauds specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. It
and would, thus, be only proven through written evidence. In spite of may also be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person
these, we find that the Municipal Government was able to prove its claim, unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office
through secondary evidence, that its contract with petitioners was one of to which such other is entitled. For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be
lease. enjoined must be a ministerial act or duty. An act is ministerial if the act
should be performed "[under] a given state of facts, in a prescribed
FIRST CLASS CADET ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA vs THE manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY (PMA), or the exercise of [the tribunal or corporation's] own judgment upon the
THE HONOR COMMITTEE (HC) OF 2014 OF THE PMA and HC propriety or impropriety of the act done." The tribunal, corporation, board,
MEMBERS, and the CADET REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD (CRAB) officer, or person must have no choice but to perform the act specifically
enjoined by law. This is opposed to a discretionary act whereby the officer
G.R. No. 211362               February 24, 2015 has the choice to decide how or when to perform the duty. With respect to
FACTS: Six days prior to the March 16, 2014 graduation ceremonies of the prayer directing the PMA to restore Cadet 1 CL Cudia's rights and
the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), petitioners Renato P. Cudia, acting entitlements as a full-fledged graduating cadet, including his diploma,
for himself and in behalf of his son, Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia awards, and commission as a new Philippine Navy ensign, the same
(Cadet JCL Cudia), and Berteni Catalufta Causing filed this petition for cannot be granted in a petition for mandamus on the basis of academic
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for extremely urgent freedom, which We shall discuss in more detail below. Suffice it to say at
temporary restraining order (TRO). "The Court, acting on the Motion of this point that these matters are within the ambit of or encompassed by the
Reconsideration of petitioner through his relator, denied with finality the right of academic freedom; therefore, beyond the province of the Court to
motion (it being his third) and considered the case closed and terminated," decide.64 The powers to confer degrees at the PMA, grant awards, and
the High Tribunal said following its en banc session on Monday, November commission officers in the military service are discretionary acts on the
16. part of the President as the AFP Commander-in-Chief. Borrowing the
words of Garcia:
Cudia was fighting to get his diploma from the military school. He was
supposed to graduate with honors in 2014, but was dismissed for violating There are standards that must be met. There are policies to be pursued.
the PMA Honor Code. Discretion appears to be of the essence. In terms of Hohfeld's terminology,
what a student in the position of petitioner possesses is a privilege rather
He supposedly lied about his tardiness in one class. Cudia was 2 minutes than a right. She [in this case, Cadet 1 CL Cudia] cannot therefore satisfy
late for an English class, saying that he and other cadets were "dismissed the prime and indispensable requisite of a mandamus proceeding.65
a little bit late" in the previous class. He was dismissed and was not able to
graduate and even was not able to get his diploma. With this they prayed Certainly, mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases. It cannot be
for a Petition for Mandamus against the PMA to release his credentials availed against an official or government agency whose duty requires the
and diploma. exercise of discretion or judgment.66 For a writ to issue, petitioners should
have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and there should be an
Issue: WON the PMA can be a subject of a writ of mandamus? imperative duty on the part of respondents to perform the act sought to be
mandated.
Held: Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition
for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA VS JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015

5
 now assails, is necessary and incidental to the exercise of the JBC's
FACTS : The petitioner was appointed on September 18, 2012 as the constitutional mandate, a determination must be made on whether the JBC
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Compostela-New has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Bataan, Poblacion, Compostela Valley Province, Region XI, which is a jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing the said policy.
first-level court. On September 27, 2013, he applied for the vacant position
of Presiding Judge in the following Regional Trial Courts (RTCs): Branch Besides, the Court can appropriately take cognizance of this case by virtue
31, Tagum City; Branch 13, Davao City; and Branch 6, Prosperidad, of the Court's power of supervision over the JBC. Jurisprudence provides
Agusan Del Sur In a letter2 dated December 18, 2013, JBC's Office of that the power of supervision is the power of oversight, or the authority to
Recruitment, Selection and Nomination, informed the petitioner that he see that subordinate officers perform their duties.
was not included in the list of candidates for the said stations. On the same
date, the petitioner sent a letter, through electronic mail, seeking Following this definition, the supervisory authority of the Court over the
reconsideration of his non-inclusion in the list of considered applicants and JBC is to see to it that the JBC complies with its own rules and
protesting the inclusion of applicants who did not pass the prejudicature procedures. Thus, when the policies of the JBC are being attacked, then
examination. The petitioner was informed by the JBC Executive Officer, the Court, through its supervisory authority over the JBC, has the duty to
through a letter3 dated February 3, 2014, that his protest and inquire about the matter and ensure that the JBC complies with its own
reconsideration was duly noted by the JBC en banc. However, its decision rules
not to include his name in the list of applicants was upheld due to the
JBC's long-standing policy of opening the chance for promotion to second- The remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of by the petitioner in
level courts to, among others, incumbent judges who have served in their assailing JBC's policy. It is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus
current position for at least five years, and since the petitioner has been a that the applicant should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded
judge only for more than a year, he was excluded from the list. This and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act
caused the petitioner to take recourse to this Court required. The remedy of mandamus, as an extraordinary writ, lies only to
compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.14
ISSUE : WON the writ of certiorari and prohibition cannot issue to prevent Clearly, the use of discretion and the performance of a ministerial act are
the JBC from performing its principal function under the Constitution to mutually exclusive. Clearly, to be included as an applicant to second-level
recommend appointees to the Judiciary because the JBC is not a tribunal judge is not properly compellable by mandamus inasmuch as it involves
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function the exercise of sound discretion by the JBC

HELD : The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are tenable. "The The petition for declaratory relief is improper. "An action for declaratory
present Rules of Court uses two special civil actions for determining and relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract
correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an
jurisdiction. executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought under this
remedy includes the interpretation and determination of the validity of the
In this case, it is clear that the JBC does not fall within the scope of a written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties' rights or duties
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In thereunder."
the process of selecting and screening applicants, the JBC neither acted in
any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor assumed unto itself any In this case, the petition for declaratory relief did not involve an unsound
performance of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. However, since the policy. Rather, the petition specifically sought a judicial declaration that the
formulation of guidelines and criteria, including the policy that the petitioner petitioner has the right to be included in the list of applicants although he

6
failed to meet JBC's five-year requirement policy. Again, the Court
reiterates that no person possesses a legal right under the Constitution to
be included in the list of nominees for vacant judicial positions. The
opportunity of appointment to judicial office is a mere privilege, and not a
judicially enforceable right that may be properly claimed by any person

Furthermore, the instant petition must necessarily fail because this Court
does not have original jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief even
if only questions of law are involved.18 The special civil action of
declaratory relief falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate
RTC pursuant to Section 1919 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended
by R.A.No. 7691

Therefore, by virtue of the Court's supervisory duty over the JBC and in
the exercise of its expanded judicial power, the Court assumes jurisdiction
over the present petition. But in any event, even if the Court will set aside
procedural infirmities