Olan and Eballe vs CA
1. Petitioners Jacinto Olan and Renato Eballe were defendants in Ejectment Case No.
929 in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Los Baños, Laguna filed by herein respondent
spouses Librado Villanueva and Tomasa Ignacio. The MTC[i][3] ordered OLAN and
EBALLE to entirely vacate Lot 3839 and Lot 3842, both of the Los Baños Cadastre 450-
D, situated at Brgy. Timugan, Los Baños, Laguna, which lots said defendants are now
unlawfully occupying, and to turn them over to the possession of plaintiffs LIBRADO
VILLANUEVA and TOMASA L. IGNACIO[ii][4]
Petitioners appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna
which affirmed the decision of the MTC. A writ of execution pending appeal was
granted by the RTC which petitioners moved to quash in the Court of Appeals[iii][5] (CA.
G.R. No. 30812) on the ground that the lot occupied by petitioners was different from
the lots ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the MTC decision.
Meanwhile, petitioners appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals (C.A.
G.R. No. 31618) which affirmed the RTC decision.
Petitioners seek to compel the Court of Appeals through the Writ of Mandamus
to receive into evidence a certification made by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) to the effect that the lot possessed by petitioner OLAN is
different from the lots decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision as newly
discovered evidence.
Issues: 1) Can the Court of Appeals be compelled to receive said evidence?
Ruling: The Court of Appeals cannot be compelled to receive said evidence, it not being
a newly discovered evidence..
Writ of mandamus is not the proper remedy to compel a court to grant a new trial
on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Mandamus is employed to compel the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its chief use and not a
discretionary duty. It is nonetheless likewise available to compel action, when refused,
in matters involving judgment and discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment
or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in
the exercise of either.
Petitioners did not prove that, even with the use reasonable diligence, they could not
have obtained the certification during the trial. The fact that petitioners’ request with the
DENR to determine whether there was a relationship between Lot 3839 and 3842 with
Lot 8253 was made only on April 13, 1993[viii][15] or almost ten years after the decision
of the MTC was rendered on May 18, 1992 shows that petitioners did not exercise
reasonable diligence to obtain this evidence (OLAN v. Court of Appeals, [G.R. No.
116109. September 14, 1999]
ANGCHANGCO vs OMBUDSMAN
Facts: Petitioner served as a deputy sheriff and later as Sheriff IV in the Regional Trial
Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City. Department of Labor and Employment
(Region X) rendered a decision ordering the Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring
Services Inc. (NIASSI) to pay its workers the sum of P1,281,065.505. The decision
having attained finality, a writ of execution was issued directing the Provincial Sheriff of
Agusan del Norte or his deputies to satisfy the same. Petitioner, as the assigned sheriff
and pursuant to the writ of execution issued, caused the satisfaction of the decision by
garnishing NIASSI's daily collections from its various clients.
President of NIASSI, filed a complaint for prohibition and damages against
petitioner. The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao endorsed to the Court the
administrative aspect of the complaints which was docketed hereat as A.M. No. 93-10-
385-OMB. The Court in an En Banc Resolution dated November 25, 1993 dismissed
the case for lack of interest on the part of complainants to pursue their case. With the
criminal complaints remaining unresolved for more than 6 years, petitioner filed a
motion to dismiss, invoking Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 72335-39, March 21,
1988). Sad to say, even this motion to dismiss, however, has not been acted upon.
Ruling: Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to
do the act required to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station,
or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law (Section 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court).
After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court
finds the inordinate delay of more than six years by the Ombudsman in resolving the
criminal complaints against petitioner to be violative of his constitutionally guaranteed
right to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him, thus warranting
the dismissal of said criminal cases
Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial
duty, this being its chief use and not a discretionary duty. It is nonetheless likewise
available to compel action, when refused, in matters involving judgment and discretion,
but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the
retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either.
BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. ROMEO MANIKAN
Facts: the City Treasurer of Iloilo City, assessed petitioner bank business taxes for the
years 1992 and 1993. On 26 January 1994, the bank issued two manager's checks
payable to the City Treasurer of Iloilo City, the first, Manager's Check No. 010649 for
P462,270.60, was to cover the business tax for the year 1992, and the second,
Manager's Check No. 010650 in the amount of P482,988.45, was to settle the business
tax for the year 1993. Hedzelito Bayaborda, then manager of the bank's Iloilo Branch,
instructed an employee, Edmund Sabio, to deliver the two manager's checks to the
Secretary to the City Mayor, a certain Toto Espinosa, who, in turn, handed them over to
his secretary, Leila Salcedo, for transmittal to the City Treasurer. The value of the
checks were eventually credited to the account of the City Treasurer of Iloilo City. The
checks, however, were not applied to satisfy the tax liabilities of petitioner but of other
taxpayers.
Meanwhile, the bank, through counsel, made a demand on respondent to issue official
receipts to show that it had paid its business taxes for the years 1992 and 1993 covered
by the diverted manager's checks. When he refused to issue the receipts requested,
respondent was sued by petitioners for mandamus and damages.
Issue: WON writ of mandamus may be issued
Held: In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential that, on the one
hand, the person petitioning for it has a clear legal right to the claim that is sought and
that, on the other hand, the respondent has an imperative duty to perform that which is
demanded of him.[1] Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel
compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists.
The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to
inquire and to adjudicate; thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to secure a
legal right but to implement that which is already established. Unless the right to the
relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will not issue.
By allowing the delivery of the subject checks to a person who is not directly charged
with the collection of its tax liabilities, the bank must be deemed to have assumed the
risk of a possible misuse thereof even as it appears to have fallen short of the diligence
ordinarily expected of it. The bank, of course, is not precluded from pursuing a right of
action against those who could have been responsible for the wrongdoing or who might
have been unjustly benefited thereby.
MANALO vs PAIC SAVINGS BANK
Facts: S. Villanueva Enterprises, Inc., represented by its president, Therese Villanueva Vargas,
impleaded as a respondent, obtained a P3,000,000.00 loan from PAIC Savings and Mortgage
Bank, also a respondent. As security for the loan, respondents mortgaged two (2) lots situated
in Pasay City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6076 of the Registry of Deeds,
same city. However, respondent Vargas failed to pay the loan. Consequently, the mortgage was
foreclosed and the lots were sold at public auction to respondent bank, being the highest bidder.
Seven years later, respondent Vargas filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 116,
Pasay City, a complaint for annulment of mortgage and extrajudicial foreclosure against
respondent bank, docketed as Civil Case No. R-8477. In due course, the RTC rendered a
Decision dated July 22, 1993 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals, in a Decision dated October 28, 1996, affirmed the RTC Decision, sustaining the
legality of the mortgage and the foreclosure proceedings. The Decision of the Appellate Court
then became final and executory.
He prayed that the trial court issue a writ of mandamus compelling respondent bank (1) to
allow him to redeem and/or repurchase the subject lots for P18,000,000.00; and (2) to release
to him TCT No. 6076.
ISSUE: Whether mandamus is the proper recourse to enforce petitioner’s alleged right
of redemption.
HELD: NO. Mandamus is a writ issued in order to compel the performance, when
refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective, it does not lie to require
anyone to fulfill a contractual obligation or to compel a course of conduct, nor to control
or review the exercise of discretion.
The SC held that mandamus is not the proper recourse to enforce petitioner’s alleged
right of redemption. To begin with, mandamus applies as a remedy only where
petitioner’s right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful.
