COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS UNDER RULE 65 OF THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT
(Requisites, When, and Where to File)

I. OVERVIEW

Under Philippine remedial law, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus are special civil actions governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. These actions are extraordinary remedies invoked to address specific types of grievances involving unlawful or improper acts or omissions of a tribunal, board, officer, or person exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions (for certiorari), or in some instances, exercising ministerial or discretionary functions in a manner that the law does not allow.

The hallmark of these special civil actions is their extraordinary character:

They are not substitutes for appeal.
They lie only where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Each remedy (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) has distinct requisites, though they share procedural similarities—particularly on when and where to file, as well as certain prerequisites like exhaustion of remedies (usually a motion for reconsideration) and compliance with technical requirements (verification, certification on non-forum shopping, payment of docket fees, etc.).

Below is a detailed discussion focusing on the requisites, timelines, and venue or where to file these petitions.

II. CERTIORARI (RULE 65, SECTION 1)

A. Nature

Certiorari is an extraordinary writ used to correct acts by a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions which have been done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

B. Requisites

The respondent exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
- Judicial function: When a court or tribunal tries and decides a case.
- Quasi-judicial function: When an administrative or executive body receives evidence, determines facts, and resolves controversies (e.g., agencies like the NLRC, quasi-judicial boards).
The respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- Without jurisdiction means total lack of authority.
- Excess of jurisdiction means going beyond the boundaries of authority.
- Grave abuse of discretion means that the respondent acted in a capricious, arbitrary, or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.
There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
- Certiorari is not a replacement for an appeal. It only lies when appeal is not available or is an inadequate remedy under the circumstances.
Filing of a motion for reconsideration (MR) in most cases.
- As a rule, a motion for reconsideration in the tribunal or agency of origin is required before resorting to certiorari.
- Exceptions (where prior filing of MR may be excused) include:
  a. The order is a patent nullity.
  b. The question raised is purely legal.
  c. There is an urgent necessity for speedy action and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the petitioner.
  d. MR would be useless (futility).
  e. The proceeding was ex parte or one where MR is not available.
  f. Grave and irreparable injury would be suffered.

C. When to File (Period)

A petition for certiorari must be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.
If a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, the 60-day period is reckoned from the notice of the denial of that motion.
The Supreme Court has recognized that the 60-day period is strict and that liberality is granted only under exceptional circumstances where strong compelling reasons call for relaxation.

D. Where to File (Venue)

Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals generally has concurrent jurisdiction.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) may also have concurrent jurisdiction under certain conditions. However, the general rule is that petitions for certiorari against a lower court or tribunal are filed in the RTC only if the contested acts arose within its territorial jurisdiction, and no other law confers jurisdiction on the CA or on any other specialized court.
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction in cases involving public officers within its jurisdiction as provided by law.
Despite the concurrency, the hierarchy of courts requires that one must ordinarily file the petition in the lowest court having jurisdiction (usually the RTC or the CA) unless there are valid and compelling special reasons to go directly to a higher court.

III. PROHIBITION (RULE 65, SECTION 2)

A. Nature

Prohibition is directed against any tribunal, corporation, board, or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, ministerial, or sometimes legislative/executive functions, to prevent or prohibit the commission or continuance of an act which is outside one’s lawful authority.

B. Requisites

The respondent is exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions (or is about to exercise them). In rare instances, prohibition may lie against legislative or executive acts that are patently unconstitutional or without jurisdiction.
The respondent is proceeding without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Motion for reconsideration (if applicable) is also generally required if the action or proceeding is judicial or quasi-judicial in nature, subject to the same exceptions as in certiorari.

C. When to File

The same 60-day rule from notice of the act or proceeding being questioned applies, counted from the time the aggrieved party learns of the action sought to be prohibited or from the denial of MR, if one is required and filed.

D. Where to File

Similar concurrency of jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court (and Sandiganbayan for cases involving public officers within its jurisdiction).
The hierarchy of courts principle also applies.

IV. MANDAMUS (RULE 65, SECTION 3)

A. Nature

Mandamus is a special civil action used to compel a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglecting the performance of a duty enjoined by law (a clear and specific ministerial duty) to perform such duty, or to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty arising from an office, trust, or station; or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right to which he is entitled and from which he is unlawfully excluded.

B. Requisites

There is a clear legal right possessed by the petitioner.
The respondent has a ministerial duty to perform, not a discretionary function.
- A ministerial duty is one that is so plainly prescribed by law or regulation that there is no room for the exercise of judgment or discretion.
Respondent unlawfully neglects or refuses to perform that duty despite a demand.
There is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to compel the performance of the duty.
If the duty is discretionary, mandamus generally does not lie. However, mandamus may be used to compel the exercise of discretion but not to control or substitute that discretion (the court can compel the public officer to act, but not to act in a specific way if the law leaves it to his judgment).

C. When to File

Mandamus is likewise covered by the same 60-day period from notice of the act or omission. However, since mandamus can also be triggered by a continuing omission, courts have recognized that the period may be counted from when the petitioner’s demand is finally and categorically refused.
In many instances, the requirement for a motion for reconsideration depends on the forum or the nature of the office’s refusal. If it is quasi-judicial in nature, an MR might be needed unless excepted; if it is purely administrative, the exhaustion of administrative remedies might be considered.

D. Where to File

The Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, and in certain cases the Sandiganbayan, have concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the principle on the hierarchy of courts.

V. NECESSITY OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

As mentioned, the general rule in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus is that the aggrieved party must file a motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial (if appropriate) before resorting to the extraordinary remedy. This is an application of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of remedies. Failure to do so results in the premature filing of the petition and is a ground for dismissal, unless any of the recognized exceptions is present.

VI. TECHNICAL AND FORMAL REQUIREMENTS

Verified Petition: The petition must be verified (signed under oath by the petitioner attesting to the truth of the facts alleged).
Certification against Forum Shopping: The petition must include the required certificate stating that the petitioner has not commenced any other action involving the same issues.
Payment of Docket and Other Lawful Fees: Non-payment or late payment of docket fees generally results in dismissal unless excused by the court under meritorious circumstances.
Statement of Material Dates: The petition must state (a) the date when the notice of judgment or final order was received; (b) the date when a motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed; and (c) the date when the notice of the denial thereof was received. These are crucial to show that the petition is filed on time.

VII. NO SUBSTITUTE FOR APPEAL

A petition for certiorari (or prohibition, mandamus) is generally not a substitute for a lost appeal. Even if the period to appeal has lapsed, one cannot simply file a petition under Rule 65 to make up for the lost remedy of appeal—unless the requisites for Rule 65 are present and there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court consistently holds that a remedy of appeal lost through negligence or error does not give rise to the extraordinary writ.

VIII. DISTINCTION FROM RULE 45 (APPEAL BY CERTIORARI)

Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court) involves reviewing errors of judgment (legal errors) by the Supreme Court from final judgments of lower courts.
Rule 65 (Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus) involves review or correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by any tribunal, board, or officer with no plain, speedy, adequate remedy available.
Timeliness:
- Rule 45: 15 days (extendible upon proper motion) from receipt of judgment or denial of MR.
- Rule 65: 60 days from receipt of judgment or denial of MR, but only to correct jurisdictional errors or acts constituting grave abuse of discretion.

IX. COMMON PITFALLS AND KEY POINTS

Failure to Allege Grave Abuse of Discretion
- Petitioner must explicitly allege and demonstrate that the lower court or quasi-judicial body committed grave abuse of discretion. Vague allegations of “error” generally do not suffice for certiorari.
Lack of Verified Certification Against Forum Shopping
- Non-compliance with the rule on verification and certification is a ground for dismissal.
- Courts may allow correction of formal defects if done within a reasonable period and if there is no intent to defraud or mislead.
Disregarding the 60-Day Period
- Failure to file within the 60 days (from notice of the denial of MR, if any) typically leads to dismissal, barring exceptional circumstances.
Improper Invocation of Rule 65
- When an ordinary appeal, petition for review, or petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) is adequate, a Rule 65 petition will be dismissed. One must be sure that no “plain, speedy, and adequate remedy” exists before invoking certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus.
Observance of the Hierarchy of Courts
- While the SC, CA, and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction over certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, direct recourse to a higher court (especially the SC) may be dismissed unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing the lower courts (e.g., issues of first impression, urgency, or national significance).

X. SUMMARY

Certiorari: Corrects acts by a judicial or quasi-judicial body done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Prohibition: Prevents a judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial body from continuing an act outside its jurisdiction.
Mandamus: Compels the performance of a ministerial duty or compels admission to a right.

All three require:

Lack of other plain, speedy, adequate remedy.
Clear existence of one of the bases for the writ (lack/excess of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, or neglect to perform a ministerial duty).
Filing within 60 days from notice of judgment or denial of MR.
Observing the rule on motion for reconsideration (unless excepted).
Compliance with verification, certification on non-forum shopping, and payment of docket fees.

They may be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, or the Sandiganbayan (in proper cases), subject to the principle of hierarchy of courts.

XI. CONCLUSION

Rule 65 actions—certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus—are powerful, yet extraordinary remedies. They must be availed of with meticulous adherence to procedural and substantive requirements. Courts strictly construe the requisites, especially the 60-day deadline, the necessity of a prior motion for reconsideration (unless exempt), and the requirement that there be no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Failure to abide by these rules is the most common ground for summary dismissal of a petition.

Nevertheless, Rule 65 remains critical in the judicial system as a check against judicial overreach, grave abuse of discretion, or arbitrary inaction on the part of public officials. Properly invoked, these remedies safeguard constitutional rights and maintain the rule of law.