WHEN CERTIORARI IS ALLOWED DESPITE AVAILABILITY OF
Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is
APPEAL
GR: Certiorari may only be invoked when “there is no appeal, nor
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law”
XPN: Certiorari may be allowed when it can be shown that appeal
would be:
 Inadequate
 Slow
 insufficient, and
 will not promptly relieve a party form injurious effects of the
order complained of.
FILING OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Example: Writ of Certiorari allowed when the orders of the lower
court were issued wither in excess of or without jurisdiction.
NECESSITY FOR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Rule: Motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to
the filing of a petition for certiorari
Intention:
 to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any
actual or fancied error attributed to by way of re-examination
of the legal and factual aspects of the case.
 Motion may still be considered as plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
Note:
1. Failure of the petitioner to move for the reconsideration
of the court a quo’s order denying his motion is a
sufficient ground for the outright dismissal of a petition for
certiorari.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
1. Where the order is a patent nullity
2. Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have
been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are
the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court
3. Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudice the interest of
the government or of the petitioner
4. Where the subject matter of the action is perishable
5. Where under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration
would be useless
6.
an extreme urgency for relief
7. Where in a criminal case, relief from the order of arrest is
urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is
improbable
8. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack
of due process
9. Where the proceedings were done ex parte or which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object
10. Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public
interest is involved
HOW: File a verified petition with proper court
Content:
a) Alleged facts with certainty
b) Prayer that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of the tribunal, board
officer; and
c) A grant that such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require
Other Requirements for filing the petition:
a) Certified true copy of the judgment, order,
resolution subject thereof
b) Copies of all pleadings and relevant and
pertinent documents
c) Sworn certification of non-forum shopping
Note: Non-observance of the rule is a sufficient cause for
the dismissal of the petition and cannot be merely
brushed aside as a mere technicality because
these documents important for the court’s
appraisal, evaluation and judicious disposition of
the case
WHO: aggrieved party alleging grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the trial court.
 Includes the State, private offended party,
complainant
WHEN:
1. Not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order, or
resolution
 2. If motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,
whether such motion is required or not, the 60-day period
shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion
Extension
GR: No extension of time to file the petition be granted
[A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC]
XPN:
1. Most persuasive and weighty reasons;
2. To relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure
3. Good faith of the defaulting party by immediately
paying within a reasonable time from the time of
default
4. The existence of special or compelling
circumstances
5. The merits of the case
6. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules
7. A lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory
8. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby
9. Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence without appellant’s fault
10. Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances
attendant to each other
11. In the name of substantial justice and fair play
12. Importance of the issues involved
13. Exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided
by all the attendant circumstances
WHERE:
If petition relates to acts Court
and omission of:
Municipal Trial Court/ shall be filed with RTC
Corporation/ Board/
Officer/ Person
Note:
1. Petition may be filed with Sandiganbayan whether or not
the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction [A.M. 07-7-
12-SC]
2. Under the law, the authority of the Sandiganbayan to
entertain petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus is only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
MATERIAL DATES IN THE PETITION; ‘MATERIAL DATE RULE’
 Must be stated in the petition:
a) When notice of the judgment, final order or resolution
subject of the petition was received
b) When a motion for new trial or reconsideration was
filed, if any
c) When notice of the denial of the motion for new trial
or reconsideration was received.
MEANING OF ‘IN AID OF ITS APPEALLATE JURISDICTION’
Writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
 If the said court has jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of
error, the final orders or decisions of the lower court
OBSERVANCE OF THE ‘HIERARCHY OF COURTS’ PRINCIPLE
GR: There is sequence of recourse to courts vested with
concurrent jurisdiction
a. From lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to
the highest
b. Hierarchy is determinative of venue of appeals, and
proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs
XPN: A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only
when there are special and important reasons therefor,
clearly and specifically set out in the petition
 It is to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and
attention which are better devoted to those matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent the further clogging of
the Court’s docket

Quasi-Judicial Agency
Municipal TC or RTC (for
election cases)
Shall be filed with CA
Shall be filed with COMELEC,
in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction
DUTY OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT & PUBLIC RESPONDENT
PRIVATE RESPONDENT PUBLIC RESPONDENT
GR: Not mandated to appear in, or
Duty to appear and defend not file an answer or comment to
only in his own behalf but also in the petition or any pleading
 behalf of the public respondent XPN: specifically directed by the  Served together with a copy of the petition and the
affected by the proceedings court annexes thereto [Sec. 6, Rule 65]

Note: if the case is elevated to a PROCEEDINGS AFTER COMMENT; JUDGMENT

higher court by either part, the
public respondent shall be
included therein as a nominal
party
[Sec. 5, Rule 65]
FILING OF PETITION DOES NOT STAY PROCEEDINGS;
NECESSITY FOR A WRIT OF INJUNCTION
 Petition for Certiorari does not interrupt the course of the
principal action [Sec. 7, Rule 65]
 To suspend the proceedings of the principal action:
o Application for a writ of preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order and granted by the
higher court needed
JUDICIAL COURTESY IS NOT THE PREVAILING RULE;
EXCEPTION
Principle of Judicial Courtesy
 even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order issued by the higher court, it would be proper for
the lower court of origin to suspend its proceedings.
 It is an exception rather than the rule
 May apply “if there is a strong probability that the issues before
the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a
result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court”
DUTY OF THE COURT WHICH ISSUED THE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
 Duty to decide the main case or petition within 6 months from
the issuance of the writ
ORDER TO COMMENT
WHEN ISSUED:
 Court shall issue and order requiring the respondent to
comment on the petition within 10 days from receipt of a
copy of the petition.
o Issued only when the court finds that the petition
is sufficient in form and substance.
 Thereafter, the court may require the filing of a reply and
such other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem
necessary and proper
HOW:
Options of the court:
a) Hear the case
b) Require parties to submit memoranda
[Sec. 8, Rule 65]
After such hearing/ submission of memoranda or upon expiration of
the period for filing:
 Court shall render judgment for the relief prayed for or to
which the petitioner is entitled.
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION; UNMERITORIOUS
PETITIONS
Grounds:
1. The petition is found to be patently without merit
2. The petition is prosecuted manifestly for delay
3. The question raised in the petition are to unsubstantial to
require consideration
Unmeritorious petitions:
 Dismissal of such, court may award in favor of the
respondent costs against the petitioner and counsel, in
addition to subjecting the counsel and may subject the
counsel to administrative sanctions under Rule 139 and
139-B of the Rules of Court
SERVICE OF COPY OF JUDGMENT TO PUBLIC RESPONDENT
 Certified copy of judgment shall be served upon the court, quasi-
judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
concerned [Sec. 9, Rule 65]
CONTEMPT FOR DISOBEDIENCE
 Disobedience to the judgment or order [Sec. 9, Rule 65]
RELIEF
 annulment or modification of the judgment, order, resolution or
proceeding subject to petition
 incidental reliefs as law and justice may require
 damages
REVIEW OF JUDGMENT IN A CERTIORARI PETITION
 Certiorari under Rule 65 is reviewable by appeal
  Appealable to the higher court by way of petition for review on
certiorari The filing of motion for The filing of motion for
reconsideration or new trial: reconsideration or new trial:
Decisions from Appealable to Under  if allowed, interrupts the  fresh-period rule applies
Notice of appeal period for the filing of a [Sec 4, Rule 65]
RTC CA
under Rule 41 petition for certiorari
Petition for review on  if denied, the aggrieved
CA SC certiorari under Rule party may file the petition
45 within the remaining
period, but not less than 5
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION; WHEN A RULE 45 PETITION IS days reckoned from the
CONSIDERER AS A RULE 65 PETITION AND VICE-VERSA notice of denial
 Rule 45 as Rule 65 [Sec 1, Rule 64]
1. Court treated a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 note: Fresh-period rule does not
2. Petition filed is denominated as a Rule 45 apply
3. Subject recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act
complained of is perpetrated by a court with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
EXAMPLES OF SITUATIONS WHERE CERTIORARI IS A REMEDY
 Rule 65 as Rule 45 1. Order denying a petition for relief is not appealable under the
1. If the petition for certiorari was filed within the terms of Sec 1(a) of Rule 41
reglementary period within which to file a petition for 2. dismissing an action without prejudice may be the subject of a
review on certiorari petition for certiorari. (Example: failure to comply rules on
2. When errors of judgment are averred certification against forum shopping)
3. When there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of 3. a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the
the rules as when there is significant issue of jurisdiction subject matter, and the denial of a motion for reconsideration of
the order of denial
Note: if petition denominated by Rule 45 but neither involves any 4. under the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal, a
issue on jurisdiction or a grave abuse pf discretion on the part of resolution of the Justice Secretary, modifying or reserving the
the lower court, it should be dismissed outright resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor is final, and there is no
more judicial appeal or other remedy in the ordinary course of
law.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 64 AND 5. A petition for certiorari filed by a city mayor before the CA in order
CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 to nullify the preventive suspension order issued by the
RULE 64 RULE 65 Ombudsman is in order because the order of suspension is an
Directed only against the Directed against other entities or interlocutory order hence, appealable.
judgments, final orders, or offices which refer to any tribunal, 6. Resolutions of the ombudsman in preliminary investigations of
resolutions of the COMELEC board or officer exercising judicial criminal cases are reviewed by the SC
and COA [Sec 1, Rule 64] or quasi-judicial functions [Sec 1, 7. In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to
Rule 65] the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported
by substantial evidence.
Filed within 30 days from notice Filed within 60 days from notice of 8. A judgment, resolution or final order of the COMELEC or COA
of judgment, final order, or the judgment, final order or may be brought by the aggrieved party to the SC on petition for
resolution [Sec 3, Rule 64] resolution sought to be reviewed. certiorari under Rule 65
[Sec 4, Rule 65] 9. Interlocutory order of a court is reviewable by petition for certiorari
SOME PROCEEDINGS WHERE CERTIORARI IS NOT AVAILABLE
1. If there is an appeal, or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law
2. If a complaint is dismissed on the grounds of
a. Res judicata
b. Prescription
c. Extinguishment of the obligation
d. Unenforceability under the statute of frauds

 Such dismissal shall bar the refiling of the same action or

claim.
 Remedy is to appeal

3. If it is an interlocutory order in certain cases like:

a. Petition for a writ of amparo
b. Petition for a writ of habeas corpus
c. Small claims cases
d. Cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure
4. If in cases where the purpose of the petition for certiorari is to
question the merits of an arbitral award
5. If decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan, CA, CTA
enbanc appealable to the SC by way of petition of a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising pure question of law.
Rule 65 is not a remedy
6. If a court order denying motion for the issuance of a writ of
possession is in the nature of a final order, as it left nothing else
to be resolved thereafter. Remedy is to appeal.