REM 3

• Interpleader


  A special civil action designed to protect a person against double vexation in respect of a single liability
• Interpleader requires conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against the stakeholder who claims no interest whatsoever in the subject matter or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants
• Through interpleader, the stakeholder can join all competing claimants in a single proceeding to determine conflicting claims without exposing the stakeholder to the possibility of having to pay more than once on a single liability
• A successful litigant who has secured a final judgment in its favor cannot later be impleaded by its defeated adversary in an interpleader suit and compelled to prove its claim anew against other adverse claimants as that would in effect be a collateral attack upon the judgment
• An action for interpleader may not be utilized to circumvent the immutability of a final and executory judgment
• Declaratory relief


  A viable remedy to challenge the constitutionality of a law, but does not guarantee that relief can or will be granted
• The standard rules of justiciability apply when the constitutionality of a statute is raised through a petition for declaratory relief
• Declaratory relief as a remedy for constitutional challenge

  Will succeed only when: (1) there is a clear and convincing contrariety of legal rights or (2) facial review is allowed
• Actual facts resulting from the assailed law, as applied, may not be absolutely necessary in all cases for the exercise of judicial review
• A petition for declaratory relief is no longer proper when the law, ordinance, or issuance has already been enforced and the penalty for its violation imposed against the petitioner
• Conditions to allow the conversion of a petition for declaratory relief into an ordinary action


  1. The interested party files a petition for declaratory relief before breach of the statute, contract, deed or subject written instrument

  2. There is a breach or violation of the statute, contract, deed or subject written instrument which occurred before the final termination of the case

  3. The interested party should indicate the ordinary action he or she has chosen
• The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive
• When the remedy of appeal is available to a litigant, a petition for certiorari shall not be entertained and should be dismissed for being an improper remedy
• Rule 65 petitions (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) are not per se remedies to address constitutional issues
• In certain instances, declaratory relief is proper should there be a question of the constitutionality of a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation
• Rule 65 petitions are not per se remedies to address constitutional issues
• Petitioner's choice of remedy further emphasizes his ignorance of basic legal procedure
• Petitions for certiorari are filed to address the jurisdictional excesses of officers or bodies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
• Petitions for prohibition are filed to address the jurisdictional excesses of officers or bodies exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions
• There is an abysmal dearth of facts to sustain a finding of an actual case or controversy and the existence of a direct injury to petitioner, a petition for declaratory relief resolved after full-blown trial in a trial court would have been the more appropriate remedy
• The Rules of Court provides two remedies to correct grave abuse of discretion: first, a special civil action for certiorari; and second, for prohibition
• While certiorari and prohibition, as contemplated within the Rules of Court, were traditionally used to question only judicial and quasi-judicial functions, this Court has decided on such petitions despite them involving legislative and executive acts
• The use of Rule 65 petitions to invoke this Court's expanded power may have been caused by the similarity of the grounds for review
• The expanded judicial power's overarching scope and jurisdiction are yet to be delineated
• For now, the available remedies of certiorari and prohibition, coursed through Rule 65, remain the proper avenues
• Mandamus


  An extraordinary remedy to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary
• A petition for mandamus will issue only when it is proven that petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of the act sought to be compelled and the respondent has an imperative duty to perform the same
• It is the petitioner who bears the burden to show that there is such a clear legal right to the performance of the act, and a corresponding compelling duty on the part of the respondent to perform the act
• PSA has the ministerial duty of issuing certified transcripts or copies of any certificate or document registered upon payment of proper fees as mandated by Section 12 of Act No. 3753 or the Law on Registry of Civil Status
• Requisites for the issuance of a writ of mandamus


  • Petitioner must show a clear legal right to the act demanded
  • Respondent must have the duty to perform the act because the same is mandated by law
  • Respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law
  • The act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary
  • There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
• Discretionary


  (when applied to public functionaries) a power or right conferred upon them by law or acting officially, under certain circumstances, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others
• Ministerial


  An act or duty which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done
• If the remedy of appeal was previously available to the party, his/her Rule 65 petition will not prosper even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion
• Appeal and not a special civil action for certiorari was the correct remedy to challenge the dismissal of the second petition on the ground of res judicata
• If there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a special civil action for certiorari may be availed of
• Even if a remedy is available, if it is inadequate, then there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
• A scrutiny of the merits of the case before the lower court or tribunal is proper only on appeal, not on Rule 65 proceedings
• The 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is non-extendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case
• Exceptional circumstances justifying relaxation of the 60-day reglementary period

  • For the most persuasive and weighty reasons
  • To relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure
  • Good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default
  • The existence of special or compelling circumstances
  • The merits of the case
  • A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules
  • A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory
  • The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby
  • Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence without appellant's fault
  • Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case
  • In the name of substantial justice and fair play
  • Importance of the issues involved
  • Exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances
• The private respondent in a Rule 65 petition is mandated to appear and defend both on his or her own behalf and on behalf of the public respondent affected by the proceedings