Effects of filing of an unmeritorious petition | Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (RULE 65) | SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Effects of Filing an Unmeritorious Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, or Mandamus (Rule 65) under Philippine Law

When a party files a petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petition must comply strictly with the substantive and procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence. If it is patently unmeritorious or frivolous, certain adverse consequences may befall both the litigant and counsel. Below is a comprehensive discussion of these consequences, structured to highlight critical rules, principles, and effects:

1. Immediate Dismissal of the Petition

  1. Outright Dismissal

    • The court (whether the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the Regional Trial Court depending on proper venue and hierarchy of courts) has the authority to dismiss an unmeritorious or defective petition outright.
    • Examples of clear deficiencies leading to a summary dismissal include:
      • Failure to show that the lower court or tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
      • Failure to comply with formal requirements (e.g., lack of verification, lack of certification against forum shopping, or failure to append relevant documents or material portions of the record).
      • Filing outside the reglementary period without a justified reason.

  2. No Stay of Execution

    • A frivolous petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus does not automatically stay the execution of a judgment or the proceedings in the lower court. While a meritorious Rule 65 petition may, in certain instances, prompt a higher court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, a clearly unmeritorious petition will not.
    • As a result, the litigant may still face enforcement of the decision being challenged even while the petition is pending, absent a strong showing of grave abuse of discretion that would justify the issuance of a TRO or injunction.

2. Exposure to Contempt of Court

  1. Indirect Contempt

    • Repetitive and vexatious filings, or the filing of a manifestly unmeritorious petition that unduly impedes the administration of justice, may be a ground for indirect contempt.
    • Courts frown upon dilatory tactics that abuse judicial processes, and counsel or parties who resort to the filing of obviously groundless pleadings risk sanctions under the Rules of Court (Rule 71, on Contempt).

  2. Administrative Sanctions Against Counsel

    • Lawyers who file frivolous Rule 65 petitions solely for delay or harassment may face administrative liability before the Supreme Court, which has disciplinary authority over attorneys.
    • Penalties can range from reprimand to suspension or even disbarment in extreme cases, depending on the gravity and frequency of the misconduct.

3. Exposure to Damages, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs

  1. Award of Damages and Attorney’s Fees

    • If the unmeritorious petition is found to be frivolous, dilatory, or filed in bad faith, the prevailing party may seek actual or compensatory damages, as well as attorney’s fees, under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code and/or Rule 65 itself in relation to Rule 142 (Costs).
    • Courts have wide discretion to grant attorney’s fees and litigation costs to discourage abuse of court processes.

  2. Imposition of Double or Exemplary Costs

    • In exceptionally egregious cases, the court may impose higher costs on the petitioner. This is designed to deter litigants from trifling with judicial processes and to compensate the responding party for needless expenses.

4. Effects on the Period to Appeal or Other Available Remedies

  1. General Rule: Filing a Rule 65 Petition Does Not Interrupt the Running of the Period to Appeal

    • Jurisprudence consistently holds that a special civil action for certiorari (or prohibition or mandamus) under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy and is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
    • If a party erroneously files a Rule 65 petition instead of or alongside an appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled that such filing does not toll the running of the period for appeal. Consequently, the litigant may lose the chance to pursue the proper remedy if the period expires.

  2. Risk of Waiving Correct Remedies

    • An unmeritorious Rule 65 petition might be dismissed, and, by the time of dismissal, the period for appeal could have lapsed. The result is that the litigant is left with no remedy, and the challenged decision becomes final and executory.
    • This underscores the importance of determining the appropriate remedy and the correct forum at the outset.

5. Forum Shopping and Its Repercussions

  1. Certification Against Forum Shopping

    • All petitions filed under Rule 65 must contain a certification of non-forum shopping. If an unmeritorious petition is accompanied by a false or deficient certification or is part of multiple filings seeking identical reliefs, the petition may be dismissed on that ground alone.
    • Forum shopping can also result in the imposition of administrative sanctions on counsel and/or the party-litigant.

  2. Consequences of Forum Shopping

    • Summary dismissal of all pending actions or petitions that constitute forum shopping.
    • Administrative liability and possible sanctions for lawyers.
    • Criminal liability in rare, extreme cases if there is perjury or falsification in the certification.

6. Admonition on Adherence to Professional Responsibility

  1. Duties of Counsel

    • Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers mandates that attorneys shall not do any false or deceptive act, nor file vexatious suits or motions.
    • Rule 12.02 further requires that lawyers should not file multiple actions arising from the same cause, particularly if it is intended to harass or delay.

  2. Duty of Candor and Good Faith

    • Lawyers must ensure that any petition filed under Rule 65 is grounded on well-founded arguments and that they make candid disclosures of facts and law.
    • Filing a frivolous or vexatious petition can be viewed as a breach of this duty, exposing counsel to disciplinary measures.

7. Key Jurisprudential Principles

  1. Certiorari as an Extraordinary Remedy

    • Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are remedies meant to address grievous errors amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors of judgment.
    • When the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals finds that the alleged errors are not jurisdictional or do not involve grave abuse of discretion, they will dismiss the petition outright.

  2. Impact on Judicial Efficiency

    • Courts take a stern view of unmeritorious petitions under Rule 65 because they clog dockets and impede the swift administration of justice.
    • The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the extraordinary writs should be sparingly used and not treated as another level of appeal or a default remedy.

8. Practical Considerations

  1. Evaluation Before Filing

    • Parties and counsel must thoroughly evaluate whether the error to be corrected indeed stems from lack/excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
    • They must also check the timelines: a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must generally be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution being assailed.

  2. Avoiding Dilatory Tactics

    • Courts will see through petitions that are filed solely to delay the finality or execution of a judgment.
    • If the records clearly show that the lower tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and that no grave abuse of discretion is apparent, it is better to pursue the appropriate remedy (e.g., a plain appeal, motion for reconsideration, or compliance with the judgment).

  3. Risk Management

    • Because an unmeritorious petition does not suspend the running of periods nor does it automatically stay enforcement, counsel must advise clients against capricious or ill-considered filings.
    • Any petition that appears to be a mere harassment suit can boomerang against the party in the form of sanctions, damages, or outright forfeiture of legal remedies.

9. Conclusion

The filing of an unmeritorious petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus under Rule 65 is fraught with serious consequences:

  • Immediate dismissal and non-interruption of execution.
  • Potential contempt sanctions (indirect contempt).
  • Administrative or disciplinary penalties against lawyers who file frivolous or vexatious actions.
  • Possible awards of damages, attorney’s fees, and costs in favor of the respondent.
  • Loss of the proper remedy if the period for appeal lapses while an unmeritorious Rule 65 petition is pending.

Given these risks, both litigants and counsel must ensure that any petition under Rule 65 clearly demonstrates a jurisdictional issue or a case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Otherwise, they expose themselves to swift dismissal and punitive measures designed to protect the integrity and efficiency of the judicial system.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login