Special people vs nestor canda

Facts: The petitioner was a proponent of a water-resource development and utilization project in Barangay Jimilia-an in the
Municipality of Loboc, Bohol that would involve the tapping and purifying of water from the Loboc River, and the distribution of the
purified water to the residents of Loboc and six other municipalities. The petitioner applied for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC)
with the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), seeking to be
exempt from the requirement of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1586.
The petitioner appealed Candas findings claiming that it should also be issued a CNC because the project was no different from the
Loboc-Loay waterworks project of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) that had recently been issued a CNC.
However, upon submission of the requirements, it resolved that the petitioner is not exempt from the coverage of the
Environmental Compliance. Subsequently, a petition for mandamus was filed but denied by the RTC

Issue: won mandamus is proper

Held: Mandamus was an improper remedy for petitioner
We dismiss the present recourse because the petitioner failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies, and because it
failed to show that it was legally entitled to demand the performance of the act by the respondents.
It is axiomatic, to begin with, that a party who seeks the intervention of a court of law upon an administrative concern should first
avail himself of all the remedies afforded by administrative processes.
The records show that the petitioner failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. A key principle to be observed in
dealing with petitions for mandamus is that such extraordinary remedy lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely
ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary.41 A purely ministerial act or duty is one that 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
its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither
the exercise of official discretion or judgment.42
The petitioner's disregard of the foregoing fundamental requisites for mandamus rendered its petition in the RTC untenable and
devoid of merit.
Mmda vs concerned residents of manila bay
Facts: On January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. In their
individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay
constitutes a violation of respondents constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology. Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs
a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the
purpose.
Issue: Whether or not the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.
Held:
YES. If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act or
series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or
illegal acts of the respondent. The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution
of the judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate government agency, evaluate and
monitor compliance. The petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the execution of the judgment.
Sec. 8. Return of the writ.The periodic reports submitted by the respondent detailing compliance with the judgment shall be
contained in partial returns of the writ. Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a final return of the writ shall be made to the court by
the respondent. If the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the
court docket. (Emphasis supplied.) With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing mandamus issued in
MMDA means that until petitioner-agencies have shown full compliance with the Courts orders, the Court exercises continuing
jurisdiction over them until full execution of the judgment.

Mandamus.. Uy liao vs nixon lee

Facts: Respondent Nixon Lee filed a petition for mandamus with damages against his mother Uy Kiao Eng, herein petitioner, before
the RTC of Manila to compel petitioner to produce the holographic will of his father so that probate proceedings for the allowance
thereof could be instituted. The RTC heard the case. After the presentation and formal offer of respondents evidence, petitioner
demurred, contending that her son failed to prove that she had in her custody the original holographic will. The RTC, at first, denied
the demurrer to evidence. However, it granted the same on petitioners motion for reconsideration. Respondents motion for
reconsideration of this latter order was denied. Hence, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, respondent sought review from the
appellate court. The CA initially denied the appeal for lack of merit. Respondent moved for reconsideration. The appellate court
granted the motion, set aside its earlier ruling, issued the writ, and ordered the production of the will and the payment of attorneys
fees. It ruled this time that respondent was able to show by testimonial evidence that his mother had in her possession the
holographic will. Dissatisfied with this turn of events, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. The appellate court denied this
motion. Left with no other recourse, petitioner brought the matter before this Court, contending in the main that the petition for
mandamus is not the proper remedy and that the testimonial evidence used by the appellate court as basis for its ruling is
inadmissible.
Issue: Whether or not mandamus is the proper remedy of the respondent.
Held: The Court cannot sustain the CAs issuance of the writ. Recognized further in this jurisdiction is the principle that mandamus
cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations. Generally, mandamus will not lie to enforce purely private contract rights, and
will not lie against an individual unless some obligation in the nature of a public or quasi-public duty is imposed. The writ is not
appropriate to enforce a private right against an individual.] The writ of mandamus lies to enforce the execution of an act, when,
otherwise, justice would be obstructed; and, regularly, issues only in cases relating to the public and to the government; hence, it is
called a prerogative writ. To preserve its prerogative character, mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in
matters relating to the public.
Prohib.. Delta vs hlurb
Facts: The petition mainly alleged that the proceedings before the HLURB were not impartial because the HLURB itself was basically
representing the interest of the lot buyers as one of its employees prepared the complaints against petitioner on behalf of the lot
buyers. It claimed that the HLURB conducted hearings only to render an appearance of validity and impartiality in the proceedings.
According to petitioner, the act of HLURB in preparing the complaints of the buyers of Delta Homes deprived petitioner of due
process, invalidating the proceedings and any decision of the HLURB.
On 25 July 2000, the Court of Appeals issued the first7 of the two assailed resolutions dismissing the petition for prohibition on the
ground that it violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The appellate court also noted petitioners failure to
implead the various complainants as respondents and to serve copies of the petition on them.
Issue: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE INSTANT PETITION IS A VIOLATION
OF THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Held: Being an extraordinary remedy, prohibition cannot be resorted to when the ordinary and usual remedies provided by law are
adequate and available. Prohibition is granted only where no other remedy is available or sufficient to afford redress. That the
petitioner has another and complete remedy at law, through an appeal or otherwise, is generally held sufficient reason for denying
the issuance of the writ.11
Also, a writ of prohibition will not be issued against an inferior court unless the attention of the court whose proceedings are sought
to be stayed has been called to the alleged lack or excess of jurisdiction. The foundation of this rule is the respect and consideration
due to the lower court and the expediency of preventing unnecessary litigation; it cannot be presumed that the lower court would
not properly rule on a jurisdictional objection if it were properly presented to it.12
Contrary to petitioners stance, it has a remedy other than a petition for prohibition to assail the alleged illegality of the proceedings
before the HLURB. The 1996 HLURB Rules of Procedure, which then governed the quasi-judicial proceedings in the HLURB, provides
for a rule on the inhibition and disqualification of an arbiter. Section 3 of Rule IX expressly directs the party alleging partiality of the
arbiter to file with the arbiter his objection in writing stating the grounds therefor; thereafter, the arbiter shall decide the incident.
This provision could have properly addressed petitioners perception that the proceedings before the arbiter were tainted with bias.