Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
De La Cruz
Injunction) (Declaratory Relief)
Injunctive reliefs are meant to preserve The doctrine [of exhaustion of administrative
substantive rights and prevent further injury remedies], however, is not without exceptions.
until final adjudication on the merits of the case. Among the exceptions are: (1) where there is
In the present case, since the legal rights of the estoppel on the part of the party invoking the
Knights of Riza are not well-defined, clear and doctrine; (2) where the challenged
certain, the petition for Mandamus must be administrative act is patently illegal, amounting
dismissed and the TRO lifted. to lack of jurisdiction; (3) where there is
unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (4)
Wack-Wack Gold and Country Club v. Won where the amount involved is relatively so small
(Interpleader) as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
(5) where the question involved is purely legal
It was only after adverse final judgment was and will ultimately have to be decided by the
rendered against it that the remedy of courts of justice; (6) where judicial intervention
interpleader was invoked by it. By then it was is urgent; (7) where the application of the
too late because to be entitled to this remedy, doctrine may cause great and irreparable
the applicant must be able to show that he has damage; (8) where the controverted acts violate
not been made independently liable to any of due process; (9) where the issue of non-
the claimants. And since the Corporation is exhaustion of administrative remedies had been
already liable to Lee under a final judgment, the rendered moot; (10) where there is no other
present interpleader suit is clearly improper and plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (11) where
unavailing. strong public interest is involved; and (12) in quo
warranto proceedings.
NOTE: Interpleader is a compulsory
counterclaim. In this case, respondents allege that CPO 189-
2013 is contrary to law and unconstitutional.
Respondents assail CPO 189-2013 as patently
Eternal Gardens v. IAC (Interpleader) illegal, arbitrary, and oppressive. This case
clearly falls within the exceptions where
As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, exhaustion of administrative remedies need not
the essence of an interpleader, aside from the be resorted to by respondents.
disavowal of interest in the property in litigation
on the part of the petitioner, is the deposit of the Note: In the case at bar, the jurisdiction to try
property or funds in controversy with the court. and decide petition for declaratory relief is with
it is a rule founded on justice and equity: "that the RTC
the plaintiff may not continue to benefit from
the property or funds in litigation during the
pendency of the suit at the expense of whoever Cudia v. Superintendent (Mandamus)
will ultimately be decided as entitled thereto."
For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be
enjoined must be a ministerial act or duty. An act
is ministerial if the act should be performed ineligibility of the winning candidate. The
"[under] a given state of facts, in a prescribed objective of the action is to unseat the ineligible
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal person from the office, but not to install the
authority, without regard to or the exercise of petitioner in his place. Any voter may initiate the
[the tribunal or corporation's] own judgment action, which is, strictly speaking, not a contest
upon the propriety or impropriety of the act where the parties strive for supremacy because
done." The tribunal, corporation, board, officer, the petitioner will not be seated even if the
or person must have no choice but to perform respondent may be unseated.
the act specifically enjoined by law. This is
opposed to a discretionary act whereby the Republic v. Sereno (Quo Warranto)
officer has the choice to decide how or when to
perform the duty. On the argument that Respondent is an
impeachable officer such that a quo warranto
petition cannot prosper, the Court held that the
Villanueva v. JBC (Mandamus) origin, nature and purpose of impeachment and
quo warranto are materially different. While
The remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of both impeachment and quo warranto may result
by the petitioner in assailing JBC's policy. The in the ouster of the public official, the two
petitioner insisted that mandamus is proper proceedings materially differ. At its most basic,
because his right was violated when he was not impeachment proceedings are political in
included in the list of candidates for the RTC nature; while an action for quo warranto is
courts he applied for. He said that his non- judicial or a proceeding traditionally lodged in
inclusion in the list of candidates for these the courts.
stations has caused him direct injury.
Furthermore, there is no forum-shopping, as
It is essential to the issuance of a writ of alleged by the Respondent, because quo
mandamus that the applicant should have a warranto and impeachment can proceed
clear legal right to the thing demanded and it independently and simultaneously, as they
must be the imperative duty of the respondent differ as to (1) jurisdiction (2)grounds, (3)
to perform the act required. The petitioner applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing
bears the burden to show that there is such a and dismissal, and (4) limitations. The causes of
clear legal right to the performance of the act, action in the two proceedings are unequivocally
and a corresponding compelling duty on the part different. In quo warranto, the cause of action
of the respondent to perform the act. The lies on the usurping, intruding, or unlawfully
remedy of mandamus, as an extraordinary writ, holding or exercising of a public office, while in
lies only to compel an officer to perform a impeachment, it is the commission of an
ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. Clearly, impeachable offense. Likewise, the reliefs
the use of discretion and the performance of a sought in the two proceedings are different.
ministerial act are mutually exclusive. Respondent in a quo warranto proceeding shall
be ordered to cease holding a public office,
Lokin Jr. v COMELEC (Quo Warranto) which he/she is ineligible to hold. On the other
hand, in impeachment, a conviction shall result
A special civil action for quo warranto refers to in the removal of the Respondent from the
questions of disloyalty to the State, or of public office that he/she is legally holding.
impeachment proceedings are political in
Furthermore, the impeachment case is yet to be nature; while an action for quo warranto is
initiated by the filing of the Articles of judicial or a proceeding traditionally lodged in
Impeachment before the Senate. Thus, at the the courts. Furthermore, there is no forum-
moment, there is no pending impeachment case shopping, as alleged by the Respondent,
against the Respondent. because quo warranto and impeachment can
proceed independently and simultaneously, as
The proceedings in the House are merely in the they differ as to (1) jurisdiction (2)grounds, (3)
nature of a preliminary investigation whereby applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing
probable cause is sought to be determined. and dismissal, and (4) limitations. Thecauses of
action in the two proceedings are unequivocally
Sereno Case Salient Points: different. In quo warranto, the cause of action
Remedial principles attacked/ amended lies on the usurping, intruding, or unlawfully
holding or exercising of a public office, while
a. Prescription does not lie against the state inimpeachment, it is the commission of an
impeachable offense. Likewise, the reliefs
The one-year limitation is not applicable when sought in the twoproceedings are different.
the Petitioner is not a mere private individual Respondent in a quo warranto proceeding shall
pursuing a private interest, but the government be ordered to cease holding a public office,
itself seeking relief for a public wrong and suing which he/she is ineligible to hold. On the other
for public interest. In the three instances hand, in impeachment, a conviction shall result
enumerated by Rules of Court, the Solicitor in the removal of the Respondent from the
General is mandated under the Rules to public office that he/she is legally holding.
commence the necessary quo warranto petition, Furthermore, the impeachment case is yet to be
as seen in the use of the word “must.” In Agcaoili initiated by the filing of the Articles of
v. Suguitan, “As a general principle it may be Impeachment before the Senate. Thus, at the
stated that ordinary statutes of limitation, civil moment, there is no pending impeachment case
or penal, have no application to quo warranto against the Respondent. The proceedings in the
proceeding brought to enforce a public right.” In House are merely in the nature of a preliminary
effect, when the government is the real party in investigation whereby probable cause is sought
interest, and is proceeding mainly to assert its to be determined.
rights, there can be no defense on the ground of
laches or prescription. Remedial principles upheld
a. Heirarchy of courts
b. Comparative with impeachment
While the hierarchy of courts serves as a general
On the argument that Respondent is an determinant of the appropriate forum for
impeachable officer such that a quo warranto petitions for the extraordinary writs, a direct
petition cannot prosper, the Court held that the invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction in this
origin, nature and purpose of impeachment and case is justified considering that the qualification
quo warranto are materially different. While of a Member of the Court is in question, and the
both impeachment and quo warranto may result issue is of public concern
in the ouster of the public official, the two
proceedings materially differ. At its most basic, b. Principle of transcendental importance
was made through stealth; if so, the one-year
The petition for quo warranto is of period would be counted from the time the
transcendental importance. The instant petition plaintiff learned about it.
is one of first impression and of paramount
importance to the public in the sense that the It is not necessary, however, for the complaint
qualification, eligibility and appointment of an to utilize the language of the statute; i.e., to
incumbent Chief Justice, the highest official of state that the person has been deprived of
the Judiciary, are being scrutinized through an possession by force, intimidation, threat,
action for quo warranto. strategy or stealth. A statement of facts showing
that dispossession took place under those
c. Venue conditions is sufficient. Still, the complaint must
show enough on its face to give the court
Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution states jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence.
that the SC has original jurisdiction over
petitions for quo warranto. This jurisdiction is The allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
concurrent with the Court of Appeals (CA) and Complaint adequately aver prior physical
the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Section 7, Rule 66 possession by respondents and their
of Rules of Court provides that the venue for an dispossession thereof by stealth, because the
action for quo warranto is in the RTC of Manila, intrusion by petitioner was without their
CA, or SC when commenced by the Solicitor knowledge and consent. The Court thus agrees
General. with the findings of the CA that contrary to those
of the RTC that the case was an action for
ejectment in the nature of accion
De La Cruz v. Hermano (Forcible Entry and reivindicatoria, the case was actually for forcible
Unlawful Detainer) entry and sufficient in form.
Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, requires Likewise, the Court agrees with the CA’s findings
that in actions for forcible entry, it must be that the Complaint was timely filed. It is settled
alleged that the complainant was deprived of that where forcible entry occurred
the possession of any land or building by force, clandestinely, the one-year prescriptive period
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, and should be counted from the time the person
that the action was filed anytime within one year who was deprived of possession demanded that
from the time the unlawful deprivation of the deforciant desist from dispossession when
possession took place. This requirement implies the former learned about it. The owners or
that in those cases, possession of the land by the possessors of the land cannot be expected to
defendant has been unlawful from the enforce their right to its possession against the
beginning, as the possession was obtained by illegal occupant and sue the latter before
unlawful means. Further, the complainant must learning of the clandestine intrusion. And to
allege and prove prior physical possession of the deprive lawful possessors of the benefit of the
property in litigation until he or she was summary action under Rule 70 of the Revised
deprived thereof by the defendant. The one- Rules, simply because the stealthy intruder
year period within which to bring an action for managed to conceal the trespass for more than
forcible entry is generally counted from the date a year, would be to reward clandestine
of actual entry into the land, except when entry usurpations even if they are unlawful
Erorita v. Dumlao (Forcible Entry and Unlawful inherent power lodged in courts of justice, to be
Detainer) used as a means to protect and preserve the
dignity of the court, the solemnity of the
To make a case for unlawful detainer, the proceedings therein, and the administration of
complaint must allege that: (a) initially, the justice from callous misbehavior, offensive
defendant lawfully possessed the property, personalities, and contumacious refusal to
either by contract or by plaintiff’s tolerance; (b) comply with court orders.
the plaintiff notified the defendant that his right
of possession is terminated; (c) the defendant At first blush, it would seem that the respondent
remained in possession and deprived plaintiff of judge was justified in holding the complainant
its enjoyment; and (d) the plaintiff filed a for contempt, due to the latter’s refusal to
complaint within one year from the last demand comply with the judge’s Order of September 15,
on defendant to vacate the property. A 1999. However, it is not lost upon this Court that
complaint for accion publiciana or recovery of the complainant was not a party to any of the
possession of real property will not be cases pending before the RTC, Branch 253. What
considered as an action for unlawful detainer if triggered the contempt charge was, in fact, the
any of these special jurisdictional facts is traffic violation incident involving the
omitted. respondent judge’s son. Furthermore, the
record shows that when the complainant filed
A review of the complaint shows that: (a) the his reply to the charge as required by the
owners, Spouses Dumlao, agreed to allow the respondent judge, the same was refused by
petitioners to continue operating the school on some staff member in the latter’s sala.
the disputed property; (b) in a demand letter
dated February 12, 2004, the Spouses Dumlao • We agree with the Investigating Justice
told the petitioners to pay and/or vacate the when he opined that the respondent
property; (c) the respondents refused to vacate judge should have refrained from
the property; and (d) the Spouses Dumlao filed ordering the arrest and detention of the
the complaint (March 4, 2004) within a year complainant, since the incident involved
from the last demand to vacate (February 12, his own son, and the matter was very
2004). personal to him. The fact that the
respondent judge insisted that the
Thus, although the complaint bears the caption complainant personally file his comment
"recovery of possession," its allegations contain in court gives rise to doubts as to the
the jurisdictional facts for an unlawful detainer motive behind it; as the Investigating
case. Under RA 7691, an action for unlawful Justice puts it, the requirement of
detainer is within the MTC’s exclusive personal filing was deliberately inserted
jurisdiction regardless of the property’s assessed so that the respondent could confront
value. and harass the complainant.
The act of a judge in citing a person in contempt
of court in a manner which smacks of retaliation,
Sison v. Caoibes (Contempt) as in the case at bar, is appalling and violative of
Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which
The power to declare a person in contempt of mandates that "a judge should so behave at all
court and in dealing with him accordingly is an
times to promote public confidence in the Screening" which was attached to the petition
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." for guardianship but was never identified by any
witness nor offered as evidence. In any event,
the said report, as mentioned earlier, was
Balindong v. CA (Contempt) ambivalent at best, for although the report had
negative findings regarding memory lapses on
Verily, the power of the courts to punish for the part of respondent, it also contained findings
contempt is to be exercised cautiously, that supported the view that respondent on the
sparingly, and judiciously. Self-restraint in average was indeed competent.
wielding contempt powers should be the rule
unless the act complained of is clearly In an analogous guardianship case wherein the
contumacious. An act, to be contumacious, must soundness of mind of the proposed ward was at
manifest willfulness, bad faith, or deliberate issue, we had the occasion to rule that "where
intent to cause injustice. the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion
is not necessary [and that] the observations of
It is clear that Judge Balut did not thereby the trial judge coupled with evidence
disobey the decisions of the Court in G.R. No. establishing the person’s state of mental sanity
159962 and G.R. No. 173290. To start with, there will suffice."
was no indication in his Order that bad faith had
moved him to suspend the implementation of The Court noted the absence of any testimony of
the warrants of arrest against Balindong, et al., a medical expert which states that Gen. Cirilo O.
or that he had thereby acted with a willful and Oropesa does not have the mental, emotional,
deliberate intent to disobey or to ignore the and physical capacity to manage his own affairs.
Court's bidding, or to cause injustice to any of On the contrary, Oppositor’s evidence includes a
the parties. In the absence of the clear showing Neuropsychological Screening Report which
of bad faith on his part, his being prudent could states that Gen. Oropesa, (1) performs on the
only be an error of judgment, for which he could average range in most of the domains that were
not be held to account. tested; (2) is capable of mental calculations; and
(3) can provide solutions to problem situations.
The Report concludes that Gen. Oropesa
Oropesa v. Oropesa (Guardianship) possesses intact cognitive functioning, except
for mildly impaired abilities in memory,
Even if we were to overlook petitioner’s reasoning and orientation. It is the observation
procedural lapse in failing to make a formal offer of the Court that oppositor is still sharp, alert
of evidence, his documentary proof were and able.
comprised mainly of certificates of title over real
properties registered in his, his father’s and his
sister’s names as co-owners, tax declarations, Nery v. Sampana (Adoption and Custody of
and receipts showing payment of real estate Minors)
taxes on their co-owned properties, which do
not in any way relate to his father’s alleged Sampana’s proffered excuse of waiting for the
incapacity to make decisions for himself. The certification before filing the petition for
only medical document on record is the adoption is disingenuous and flimsy. Inhis
aforementioned "Report of Neuropsychological position paper, he suggested to Nery that if the
alien adopter would be married to her close Department shall be restored if the adoptee is
relative, the intended adoption could be still a minoror incapacitated. The reciprocal
possible. Under the Domestic Adoption Act rights and obligations of the adopter(s) and the
provision, which Sampana suggested, the alien adoptee to each other shall be extinguished.
adopter can jointly adopt a relative within the
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of The provision adverted to is applicable herein by
his/her Filipino spouse, and the certification of analogy insofar as the restoration of custody is
the alien’s qualification to adopt is waived. concerned. The manner herein of terminating
the adopter’s parental authority, unlike the
grounds for rescission, justifies the retention of
Bartolome v. SSS (Adoption and Custody of vested rights and obligations between the
Minors) adopter and the adoptee, while the consequent
restoration of parental authority in favor of the
True, when Cornelio, in 1985, adopted John, biological parents, simultaneously, ensures that
then about two (2) years old, petitioner’s the adoptee, who is still a minor, is not left to
parental authority over John was severed. fend for himself at such a tender age.
However, lest it be overlooked, one key detail
the ECC missed, aside from Cornelio’s death,
was that when the adoptive parent died less Tujan-Militante v. Cada-Deapera (Habeas
than three (3) years after the adoption decree, Corpus)
John was still a minor, at about four (4) years of
age. The National Capital Judicial Region, consisting
of the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan
John’s minority at the time of his adopter’s and Mandaluyong, and the municipalities of
death is a significant factor in the case at bar. Navotas, Malabon, San Juan, Makati, Pasig,
Under such circumstance, parental authority Pateros, Taguig, Marikina, Parañaque, Las Piñas,
should be deemed to have reverted in favor of Muntinlupa, and Valenzuela. (emphasis ours)
the biological parents. Otherwise, taking into
account Our consistent ruling that adoption is a In view of the afore-quoted provision,it is
personal relationship and that there are no indubitable that the filing of a petition for the
collateral relatives by virtue of adoption,21 who issuance of a writ of habeas corpus before a
was then left to care for the minor adopted child family court in any of the cities enumerated is
if the adopter passed away? proper as long as the writ is sought to be
enforced within the National Capital Judicial
To be sure, reversion of parental authority and Region, as here.
legal custody in favor of the biological parents is
not a novel concept. Section 20 of Republic Act In the case at bar, respondent filed the petition
No. 855222 (RA 8552), otherwise known as the before the family court of Caloocan City. Since
Domestic Adoption Act, provides: Caloocan City and Quezon City both belong to
the same judicial region, the writ issued by the
Section 20. Effects of Rescission.– If the petition RTC-Caloocan can still be implemented in
[for rescission of adoption] is granted, the Quezon City. Whether petitioner resides in the
parental authority of the adoptee's biological former or the latter is immaterial in view of the
parent(s), if known, or the legal custody of the above rule.
Datukan Malang Saliba v. The Warden (Habeas language of the Civil Register Law was enacted
Corpus) in the early 1900s and remains unchanged, it
cannot be argued that the term "sex" as used
It is true that a writ of habeas corpus may no then is something alterable through surgery or
longer be issued if the person allegedly deprived something that allows a post-operative male-to-
of liberty is restrained under a lawful process or female transsexual to be included in the
order of the court. The restraint then has category "female."
become legal, and the remedy of habeas corpus
is rendered moot and academic. For these reasons, while petitioner may have
succeeded in altering his body and appearance
Petitioner Salibo was not arrested by virtue of through the intervention of modern surgery, no
any warrant charging him of an offense. He was law authorizes the change of entry as to sex in
not restrained under a lawful process or an the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no
order of a court. He was illegally deprived of his legal basis for his petition for the correction or
liberty, and, therefore, correctly availed himself change of the entries in his birth certificate.
of a Petition for Habeas Corpus.