Continuation of Rule 45 and 65

Take Note:
Rule 45 is a mode of appeal. This is also called a petition for review on certiorari.
Rule 65 is a special civil action. This is certiorari.

Question:
Supposed you are not sure what petition to file. Can you combine these two (Rule 45 and Rule
65) in a single petition?

Answer:
No. You cannot combine these two in a single petition because they are governed by different
set of rules.

Distinctions

RULE 45 RULE 65
The petitioner raises pure questions of law. The petitioner raises jurisdictional issues that the
court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
The issues are questions of law. The issues are jurisdictional issues.
When to file: should be filed within perfecting an Should be filed within 60 days from notice of the
appeal which is 15 days. judgment or the order denying the motion for
reconsideration.
When do you start counting 6o days?: from
notice of the judgment or order or notice of the
denial of the motion for reconsideration.
You file it with the Supreme Court. May be filed with the RTC, the CA or the SC

In which the petition is filed, is in the exercise of its In which the court who is exercising original
appellate jurisdiction jurisdiction.

The subject of the petition is a judgment or final The subject of the petition is may be a final order,
order. a judgment or even an interlocutory order.

Question: Supposed the President of the Philippines issues an executive order and then you are affected
by this executive order and you believe it is not valid, it is unconstitutional and so you file a petition on
certiorari with the Supreme Court to assail the validity of this executive order. Is that the proper remedy
to assail the validity of the executive order issued by the President of the Philippines?

Answer:
No. It is not a petition on certiorari. It is not a Rule 65 petition because the President is not
exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function.

Take Note: Rule 65 is available when he is exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function.

The President does not exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function. He exercises executive
functions.
 Here is a city ordinance and you believe that this law is not valid because it violates according to
you the constitution. What is your remedy to assail the validity of the city ordinance? Is it a petition on
certiorari?

Answer: No. The law was enacted in its legislative power, even an ordinance. An ordinance is enacted in
the exercise of a legislative power.

When you enact a law or an ordinance, the power being exercise is legislative power.

As noted, this petition on certiorari in Rule 65 is available when the respondent is exercising a judicial or
quasi-judicial function.

All of the mention example, the remedy is a declaratory relief. Even if, what is being assail is a
law passed by congress or an executive order issued by the President of the Philippines then you file the
petition with the Regional Trial Court. Even when the only issue involved is a question of law. (Sec1,
Rule 63)

True or False: The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petitions on declaratory relief. FALSE

Question: Supposed the petition for declaratory relief raises only pure questions of law. Is the answer
will still stay the same?
Answer: The SC has no jurisdiction.

Question from a classmate : while the case is pending, what if the law subject of relief was repealed?
Answer: the case will become moot and academic. Therefore, the case will have to dismiss because it is
an exercise in a futility to decide the case.

What are the actions that may be filed as petitions for declaratory relief?
1. An action for reformation of an instrument.
2. An action to quiet title over a real property or to remove clouds therefrom.
3. An action to consolidate ownership under article 1607 of the civil code.

There was a case, not long ago, an action to quiet title. The assessed value of the property is
15,000.00. Now, the plaintiff filed his action/complaint with the RTC. The defendant filed a motion to
dismiss arguing that this is a real action and being a real action should be the MTC that has a jurisdiction
because the assessed value does not exceed 20,000 but the plaintiff insisted it is the RTC that has
jurisdiction.

In this case, the Supreme Court says that this is a real action and jurisdiction is determined by
the assessed value of the property. So, even if Section 1, Rule 63 says RTC still we follow the rules on
jurisdiction.

MANDAMUS
Mandamus is also in Rule 65. In mandamus, the respondent is exercising ministerial function.
That should distinguish from prohibition and certiorari.
TWO ASPECTS OF MANDAMUS
I. Respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins a duty
arising from office, trans or station.

If you have a right but the court refuses to allow you that right then that can be compelled by a
mandamus. Like an execution, execution is a matter of right because the execution has become final but
then the court refuses the writ of execution. The refusal of the court is compellable by a mandamus.

When do you say that the act is ministerial?

When the law does not give the officer the power to decide how to execute the function, then it
is ministerial but you are the office and you have the power to decide / to exercise your function in what
way then that is discretionary.

Supposed, here is the city government. It has entered into a contract with a private individual or
entity and then the city government refuses to comply with its contract. May the contracting party file
an action for mandamus against the city government to compel it to perform its contract? Like the
garbage disposal, traffic management etc.

No. Mandamus is not a remedy to compel compliance with contractual obligation. It should be
an action for specific performance. When you have a contract and then the other party refuses to
comply, you can demand for recission or compliance. If you demand compliance, the action should be
an action for specific performance.

II. The respondent unlawfully excludes a person from the use or enjoyment of a right or
office to which such other person is entitled. (walang chika dito si dean)

RULE 66: QUO WARRANTO

The petition is brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against a person who
intrudes into a right, an office or a public franchise. He intrudes into. This person intrudes into a public
office. He usurps a public office or even a public franchise.

Here, the petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines.

Question: May a private individual/person bring an action for quo warranto in his own name?
Answer: Yes. He must alleged in his petition that he is entitled to his office, but he was ousted in his
office.

If a person is ousted from a public office/ remove , what is the remedy of this person?
Answer: it can be Mandamus or quo warranto. It depends upon the circumstances.

Question: X is the holder of the public office and then he was ousted from his public office. What is the
remedy of X who was ousted from his office?
Answer: if the one who ousted him is not claiming the same right in the office, then X’s remedy is a
petition of mandamus. But if the person who ousted him is claiming the same right in the office, then X’s
remedy is a petition of quo warranto because there is an intrusion.

The English translation is BY WHAT AUTHORITY.

Quo warranto is the remedy to test the qualification and eligibility of the public official. So if you are
questioning the qualification/eligibility of a public official, the petition should be quo warranto.

When the petition is brought by a private individual against the respondent if the respondent is
an elective public official like there is an election and then somebody wins in the counting and so he is
proclaimed as the winner but then the second running candidate files a petition on quo warranto to
assail his qualification like he is not a Filipino citizen. The petitioner succeeds in proving that the
respondent who won in the election is not qualified because he is not a Filipino Citizen.

Question: will the petitioner be declared in the place of the respondent.

Answer: No. the second running candidate will not be declared the winner in the event the one who got
the highest is declared not to be qualified. The order of succession must be followed. Like the Vice
mayor should be the Mayor.

But if it is an appointive public position and the issue is eligibility/qualification and if the
respondent found to be not eligible and the petitioner found out to be eligible then the petitioner will
be seated as a duly qualified official.

Question:
May an impeachable officer be the subject of a petition of quo warranto. Is a quo warranto
available against an impeachable public official?
Answer:
Yes. Because the basis between the two petitions may not be the same. (Sereno Case)

Sec11. -- petition for quo warranto must be commenced within one year .
In the case of Serreno does not apply if the petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines. This
applies only if the petition is brought by a private individual.

NEXT TOPIC: EXPROPRIATION

What can be the subject of expropriation?
All property, real or personal, may be expropriated except money.
Take Note: incapable of pecuniary estimation
Even if the land sought to be expropriated has an assessed value of only 10,000.00 still it is the
RTC that has jurisdiction because expropriation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Two Stages:
1. The first stage is concerned with the determination of the right and authority of the plaintiff
to expropriate.
 Even if the assessed value of the property being expropriated does not exceed
20,000.00 still the RTC that has jurisdiction because an action for expropriation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation.

Note: this is the method wherein the State exercises its power of eminent domain.

TO BE CONTINUED….