Department of Budget and Management v. Manila's Finest Retirees Association, Inc

RULE 63
Department of Budget and Management v. Manila's Finest Retirees Association, Inc

There is nothing in the nature of a special civil action for declaratory relief that proscribes the
filing of a counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed or contract subject of the
complaint. A special civil action is after all not essentially different from an ordinary civil action,
except that the former deals with a special subject matter which makes necessary some special
regulation. But the identity between their fundamental nature is such that the same rules
governing ordinary civil suits may and do apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with or
if they may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar rules governing special civil
actions.
The petitioner decided to pay "under protest" the fees imposed by the ordinance. Such payment
did not affect the case; the declaratory relief action was still proper because the applicability of
the ordinance to future transactions still remained to be resolved, although the matter could also
be threshed out in an ordinary suit for the recovery of taxes paid. Respondents were thus fully
aware of the petitioner's claim for refund and of what would happen if the ordinance were to be
declared invalid by the court.
RULE 65
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. CA

Banco Filipino's proper remedy from the adverse resolutions of the Court of Appeals is an
ordinary appeal to this Court via a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.
For the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to lie by reason of grave abuse of discretion, the
abuse of discretion, must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty,
or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal
hostility.
A petition for certiorari seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction while a petition for review seeks to
correct errors of judgment committed by the court. Errors of judgment include errors of
procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings. Where a court has jurisdiction over the person and
the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that
jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely
errors of judgment.
Court may treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45 to serve the higher
interest of justice, but not when the petition is filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing
a petition for review and without offering any reason therefor.
Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals

When the decision of the Court of Appeals is a final disposition of the matter before it, the
appropriate remedy of petitioner is to file a petition for review on certiorari. However, in
accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, we
have decided to treat the present petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45,
especially considering that it was filed within the reglementary period for the same. Allegation of
errors of judgment rather than of jurisdiction are the subject of a petition for review.
Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman

Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 or otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989,"
provides that all provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective
and executory.
A motion for reconsideration of any order, directive or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman
must be filed within five (5) days after receipt of written notice and shall be entertained only on
any of the following grounds:
(1) New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the order, directive or decision;
(2) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant.
The motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within three (3) days from filing: provided, that
only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are
conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand,
suspension of not more than one (1) month's salary shall be final and unappealable.
The above-quoted provision logically implies that where the respondent is absolved of the
charge, the decision shall be final and unappealable. Although the provision does not mention
absolution, it can be inferred that since decisions imposing light penalties are final and
unappealable, with greater reason should decisions absolving the respondent of the charge be
final and unappealable.
There are two instances where a decision, resolution or order of the Ombudsman arising from
an administrative case becomes final and unappealable: (1) where the respondent is absolved
of the charge; and (2) in case of conviction, where the penalty imposed is public censure or
reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary.
Thus, the decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or reversed via petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed with the Court of Appeals.
Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee

Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of
the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some
corporation or person requiring 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 operation of
law. This definition recognizes the public character of the remedy, and clearly excludes the idea
that it may be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the
public has no interest.
The writ of mandamus, however, will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not
his duty to do or which it is his duty not to do, or to give to the applicant anything to which he is
not entitled by law. Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or
as to which a substantial doubt exists, although objection raising a mere technical question will
be disregarded if the right is clear and the case is meritorious.
Recognized further in this jurisdiction is the principle that mandamus cannot be used to enforce
contractual obligations.
Belmonte v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military and other Law Enforcement
Offices
Grave abuse of discretion is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because
of passion or hostility. Petitioners, in this case, must prove that public respondent committed not
merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave.
Uy v. Santiago
It is only execution of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts' judgment pending appeal with
the Regional Trial Court which may be stayed by a compliance with the requisites provided in
Rule 70, Section 19 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. On the other hand, once the Regional Trial
Court has rendered a decision in its appellate jurisdiction, such decision shall, under Rule 70,
Section 21 of the Rules, be immediately executory, without prejudice to an appeal, via a Petition
for Review, before the Court of Appeals and/or Supreme Court.
The issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal a clear duty of respondent Judge under
the law, mandamus can and should lie against him. Indeed, mandamus will lie to compel a
judge or other public official to perform a duty specifically enjoined by law once it is shown that
the judge or public official has unlawfully neglected the performance thereof

Department of Budget and Management v. Manila's Finest Retirees Association, Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Budget and Management v. Manila's Finest Retirees Association, Inc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Budget and Management v. Manila's Finest Retirees Association, Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 63

Department of Budget and Management v. Manila's Finest Retirees Association, Inc

Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. CA

Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals

Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman

Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.