L125-2014/03/25-p.

1
CIV PRO Mar. 25, 2014
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
RULE 62
INTERPLEADER

VAA: A technic by which the possessor (or custodian) to avoid liability be

compelling the claimants to litigate among themselves
In the form of a complaint
Court has no discretion to dismiss right away (i.e. no discretion WON to give
due course)
Grounds for Dismissal
1. Improper, i.e. (1) plaintiff has an interest; or (2) the plaintiffs claim is
disputed
2. Rule 16 grounds

Procedure
1. Complaint
2. Order of court, directing parties to interplead; summons issued
3. Claimant-defendants may file motion to dismiss; within period for filing
answer, i.e. 15 days; same counting rule as in Rule 16
4. Answer of claimant-defendants
5. Pre-trial
6. Trial
7. Judgmentdetermining who is entitled to the disputed property

Rule 9.3.c does not apply; answer will not accrue to the benefits of the others
VAA: Mostly follows rules for ordinary civil actions

RULE 63
DECLARATORY RELIEF

Must be a question of
1. Construction; or
2. Validity

Will VAA: Superfluous, since there can be no will without a probate, and
if there is a probate, why go declaratory relief?
Why does the court not have discretion in 1, 2?
o i.e. Reformation, Quieting, etc. all of which ask for affirmative relief
o VAA: There is an ambivalence here; the effect of this is to treat R. 63 not
as a special civil action but an ordinary civil action
o VAA: Maybe the reason why there is no discretion is these are really
ordinary civil actions

Those who are not made parties will not be bound. ( 2)

o Ramifications of 2, connected with 1, are not simple. Does 2 apply to
1 and 2?

L125-2014/03/25-p. 2
For example, if its on the constitutionality of a statute, does that mean
that a plaintiff has to bring a class suit in order to bind everyone? (VAA:
Shows how there is something very wrong with this provision.)
o VAA: This should only be limited to declaration of rights out of a
contract, etc., not the validity of the ordinance.
Conversion to ordinary civil action ( 6): if there has been breach in the
course of proceedings
o

There is nothing in Rule 63 which prohibits a counterclaim. (PDIC v. CA) VAA:

This might be dictum, since it is not justified by the facts
o See Detective Protective v. Cloribel: Third-party complaints not allowed in
declaratory relief; (VAA: implies that since only a declaration is
sought, affirmative reliefs are not allowed; but this ruling now
clashes with the PDIC ruling)
o See also: If there is also a factual issue, it is the proper subject of a trial
and therefore of an ordinary civil action. (Kawasaki Corp v. CA)
See requisites for declaratory relief in Ferrer v. Roco
o Re: Issue must be ripe for judicial determination: not satisfied if the
issuance of the admin. agency has not yet resulted in a final decision
o Re: Adequate relief is not available through other means or other
forms of action or proceeding: not satisfied if doctrine of exhaustion of
admin. remedies is violated

RULE 65
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS

A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC: radicalized Rule 65

o Clarified that Rule 65 against QJA is brought in the CA (Republic v.
Migrino effectively overruled on the prohibition aspect)
o VAA: historybefore 1987 Const., certiorari was limited to judgments and
decisions
o VAA: Continuing problem with Rule 65 (even as amended) is it seems to
limit Rule 65 only to judgments, orders, resolutions, etc., and judicial,
quasi-judicial when it can be used for any act of government under
the 1987 Const. that are discretionary (i.e. involve the independent
judgment of the official)
o Innovations
Filing of the petition will not interrupt proceedings in the lower
court; lower court must, in fact, continue with the proceeding within
10 days (overturned Eternal Gardens, i.e. deference to the superior
court before which certiorari is pending)
If there was finding that Rule 65 (CPM) was (1) manifestly for delay,
(2) questions too unsubstantial for consideration, or (3) patently
without merit;
1. Treble costs against the lawyer and the client (solidarily)
2. Administrative sanctions under Rule 139-B
3. Disciplinary sanctions for the lawyer (e.g. disbarment,
suspension)
Distinction between procedure in SC and RTC (1 REGALADO)
o In RTC no prior service of petition required for filing

L125-2014/03/25-p. 3
RTC must make finding whether petition is sufficient in form and
substance
If there is due form and substance, it gives due course, then orders
service of summons
In CA prior service required for filing (Rule 56.2 [and, actually, Rule
46.8])
Order for the respondent to comment (also the occasion where
court acquires jurisdiction over the respondent)
Comment filed, not motion to dismiss
Court may dismiss if it finds that petition was (1) manifestly for
delay, (2) questions too unsubstantial for consideration, or (3)
patently without merit

Nominal party
o i.e. the public respondent
o Should not appear or participate in the case
o Private respondent (i.e. party interested in sustaining the action) should
be the one to defend
Consequences for annulment
o Contempt, if not followed
o Damages; may be executed under Rule 39.1

Certiorari, cases
Note 4 requirements (See Reviewers)

Tano v. Socrates:
o Plain, adequate, speedy requirement not met if, in assailing a criminal
ordinance, the accused did not file a motion to quash on the ground of
unconstitutionality of the statute
o Even if doctrine of hierarchy is violated, Court may give due course to a
petition for certiorari when there are exceptional circumstances (e.g. here,
a case of first impression as to the local legislative powers under the Local
Govt Code and the impending expiration of the assailed ordinance and
therefore mootness of the case)
Calagui v. CA
o If the issues raised are on the merits of the case (e.g. here, via an earlier
appeal before a petition for certiorari [kasi nainip yung petitioner]), it
acknowledges jurisdiction of the public respondent and therefore
questions an error in the exercise of jurisdiction
Republic v. CA
o Certiorari is not a substitute for lost remedies (e.g. here, an appeal
filed out of time)
Exception: Court will take cognizance of a petition even if the wrong
remedy was filed (e.g. an appeal to the OP) if, in the exercise of its
equity jurisdiction, it is called for by public interest (i.e. 70,000
consumers of the public utility will be affected)
Ad Hoc v. Desierto
o Motion for reconsideration is necessary before resort to Rule 65
1. To give the lower court an opportunity to correct its errors of
jurisdiction

L125-2014/03/25-p. 4

2. Procedurally, MR is plain, adequate, speedy remedy in the ordinary

course of law
(As opposed to appeal)
o Exceptions (simplified)
1. Only questions of law
2. Public interest
3. Patent nullity
4. All issues have been exhaustively passed upon (Why: court would
have considered everything already; it seems there is no chance it
will change its mind)
5. Urgent necessity (e.g. pending warrant of arrest)
6. Violation of due process
o A petition under Rule 45 can be considered a petition under Rule 65 if the
allegations include grave abuseWhy: The Rule 65 petition would not be
late, since it was filed less than 15 days)
Siena Realty v. Gal-lang
o VAA: Just illustrates old rule on counting. New rule effectively applies
Neypes, even if it was not mentioned. Rationale is to simplify/standardize
periods
Wee v. Galvez
o An order denying a Rule 65 petition is a final order, because it is
an independent civil action. [It disposes of the merits of the Rule 65
petition. It can be appealed.]
Dungog v. CA
o A Rule 65 petition may only be brought by the parties to the
principal action, i.e. the action involved in the assailed decision.
o VAA: This naturally does not apply to executive and legislative acts.
Badua v. Cordillera
o Because the CAR never existed as an autonomous region, a tribal court
does not have judicial power as it is not a court of law; they are only
conciliatory bodies like a Barangay. But its orders may still be set aside
under Rule 65 in and through regular courts.
National Artist v. Executive Sec.
o Even though injunction and prohibition are only for fait accompli, if the
acts are capable of repetition yet evading review, the petition can
prosper.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan & Silverio
o VAA: Read this case to see how grave abuse is committed
Jimenez v. Sorongon
o The State being the real party in interest in a criminal case, it is the State
(through the OSG) which can assail a dismissal of a criminal case on Rule
65 (not the private offended party, who has no legal personality).

Prohibition, cases
Manila Prince v. GSIS
o Facts: Prohibition to stop award of contract by respondent to the foreign
corporation; Mandamus to award contract to petitioner.
o VAA: Court seems to imply that because the Filipino First provision of the
Constitution is self-executing, whenever a Filipino bidder is able to match a
foreign bid, the bid must be awarded to the Filipino
o Francisco v. Fernando

L125-2014/03/25-p. 5
o

You cannot look at transcendental importance without looking at the

merits of the petition.

Mandamus, cases
PALEA v. PAL:
o Mandamus is limited to ordering the official to exercise discretion; it
cannot control how the discretion is to be exercised.
o i.e. Here, PAL could only be compelled to issue the resolution; court cannot
dictate the content of the resolution.
United Housing Corp. v. Dayrit
o Remedy for refusal of a court to issue a writ of execution is a
petition for mandamus, since the execution of a judgment is
ministerial.
o VAAs problem: Is execution of a judgment ministerial or discretionary? It
depends on which judgment is to be executed. It also depends on who and
how to execute (e.g. if it is a sheriff, pwede mandamus). It also depends
on which stage the execution is, since it is not ministerial in all levels (e.g.
if there is still an option as to which properties will be executed upon; how
can it be ministerial if there are still choices?)
o Compare to Vital-Gozon v. CA: A final and executory judgment of the CSC;
what is left is just execution, there is no need for another suit (i.e.
mandamus). But mandamus is available to compel a judgment that
has been neglected.
VAA: But there was precisely a mandamus suit before the CA!
Municipality of Makati v. CA
o General Rule: No execution on public funds. (Republic v. Palacios)
Exception: Money was appropriated already for the purpose.
o Mandamus will lie to compel a municipality to enact a law to pay a
money judgment. Mandamus will also lie to compel a payment of
the judgment if funds have already been appropriated.
VAA: Why need a Mandamus? May bank acct. na nga eh. Why dont
just garnish?
VAA: If the bank/municipality refuse, why dont just file contempt
proceedings against them?
VAA: Paano naging ministerial, eh ang daming stages ng
legislation? Kung ayaw sumunod, ico-contempt mo each stage?
Ikukulong mo yung ayaw pumunta para walang quorum?
Systems Plus v. Caloocan
o Where administrative remedies are available, mandamus will not
lie. [Not a plain, adequate, speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.]
o Mandamus does not lie against the city assessor in the exercise of
his functions. Arriving at a tax assessment is not ministerial.
MMDA v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay
o Discretion: Power to choose to perform or not to perform. (VAA: Destroys
the PALEA v. PAL distinction! So unrealistic.)
Eng v. Lee
o Mandamus cannot be used to compel specific performance of a
contract
o But SC did not decide on whether the production of a holographic will is a
public or private obligation