cases of mandamus

8/13/2019 Cases of Mandamus

1/35

EN BANC

G.R. No. 24627 September 16, 1925

CARLOS VILLANUEVA,Petitioner, vs. TE ONORABLE E!ILIO ARANETA "IA#,

$%&'e o( &%t) o* t+e Co%rt o* -rt I(t/(0e o* L/ U(-o(, /(& ARNULOUE#A"A,Respondents.

The purpose of this mandamusproceeding is to have an order issued by this court,directing the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of La Union to reinstate theelection protest presented by the petitioner against the other respondent Quezada, hohad been proclai!ed as president elect of the !unicipality of "anto To!as, La Union,and to deter!ine after the proper proceedings, the !erits of said protest in accordanceith la.chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtual la library

The petitioner alleges# $%& That on 'uly %(, %)*(, he filed a !otion, contesting the

election of the respondent as !unicipal president of the !unicipality of "anto To!as,La Union+ $*& that by order of the loer court, the contestant gave a bond on the %th ofthe sa!e !onth+ $-& that on 'uly *, %)*(, the respondent Quezada filed a generaldenial against the !otion of protest+ $& that on 'uly %- of the sa!e year, therespondent judge, upon the !otion of the other respondent Quezada, dis!issed the!otion of protest+ $(& that said order of dis!issal is erroneous, illegal and against thela, for the very reason that the pleadings of record sho that the !otion of protest aspresented ithin the ti!e prescribed by the la+ $& that the petitioner has no othere/pedient and legal re!edy in the ordinary course of la, e/ceptthis mandamusproceeding.chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtual la library

To the foregoing co!plaint, the respondent filed a de!urrer, alleging that the facttherein set forth do not constitute a cause of action justifying the issuance by this courtof the mandamusapplied for.chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtual la library

It is a fact ad!itted by both parties in this proceeding that the respondent judgedis!issed the protest in 0uestion on the ground that it as not alleged in the protest thatthe sa!e as presented ithin the legal period, nor as any evidence presented of thisfact.chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtual la library

In his order dated 'uly %-, %)*(, the respondent judge, a!ong other things says#

1hen the case as called for trial, the attorney for the protestant presented evidenceabout the certificate, 2/hibit 3, of the !unicipal board of canvassers stating the votescast for !unicipal offices# about the certificate of candidacy of the protestant, 2/hibit 4+a certificate, 2/hibit C, of the !unicipal secretary of "anto To!as, giving the na!es ofthe candidacy for the different !unicipal offices of said !unicipality+ the procla!ation ofthose elected for the !unicipal offices of said !unicipality $2/hibit 5&+ and the su!!onsserved upon the respondents by the sheriff $2/hibit 2&. 3fter the introduction of thisevidence the protestant rested, and the attorneys for the respondent 3rnulfo Quezada


2/35

!oved for the dis!issal of the case on the ground that the date of the filing of theprotest as not proven, nor as the date hen the bond as given, hich facts are

jurisdictional according to the protestee.chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtualla library

The la provides that protests of this nature !ust be presented ithin to ee6s afterthe procla!ation of the candidates $sec. 7) of the 2lection La, as a!ended&+ it saysnothing about the giving of the bond $sec. 8* of the sa!e la&. 3n e/a!ination of theprotest ill sho that there is not in it any allegation that it as presented ithin thelegal period above !entioned, nor as any evidence introduced of this fact. 3bout thiscontention of protestee9s counsel, the attorney for the protestant argues that thereappeared sta!ped on the !otion of protest a !ar6 hich says :Court of First Instance,;eceived 'une %(, %)*(, "an Fernando, La Union,


3/35

and a rit of mandamusill not issue for the reinstate!ent thereof unless !anifestinjustice ould otherise result. =or, it has been held, ill mandamuslie to co!pel acourt to reinstate a cause dis!issed on the ground that the record brought up as notsub!itted in the for! prescribed by the rules of court. >n the other hand, it has beenheld that mandamusto co!pel the reinstate!ent of a case erroneously stric6en fro!

the doc6et !ay be issued to an inferior court by a supre!e court in the e/ercise of itsgeneral poer of superintending control, but no order ill be !ade as to hat decisionthe court shall render as to any 0uestion involved, or as to the course it shall pursue indisposing of the cause. Thus, it has been ruled, under its supervisory jurisdiction, anappellate court has the authority to instruct a court of original jurisdiction to reinstate acase dis!issed on the ground and for the alleged reason that the court is ithout

jurisdiction, if it be !anifest that the court has jurisdiction, and the sa!e poer ofgeneral supervision over inferior court ill be e/ercised to co!pel the reinstate!ent andtrial of a case, dis!issed by the inferior court on the ground of insufficiency in thepleading, here no appeal is possible. 1here the rights of a person beneficiallyinterested in a suit ould be prejudiced by a dis!issal by plaintiff of

record, mandamusill lie to reinstate the case in the absence of another ade0uatere!edy. $%8 ;. C. L., pp -*%?-%-, par. *(.& chanrobles virtual la library

In the case of Nisperos vs. Araneta Diaz and Flores, ;. @. =o. *((*, recently decidedby this court $"epte!ber %A, %)*(, p. 8A, ante& e have held, in the first place, that theti!e for filing a protest is a !atter of judicial record and the loer court having saidrecord under its control !ay deter!ine by itself hether or not the protest aspresented ithin the legal period, irrespective of any allegation that !ay be !ade in theprotest relative to the ti!e of the filing thereof+ and secondly, that the o!ission of theallegation relative to the filing of the protest is not necessarily fatal to the protestant,even under the doctrine laid don in Ferrer vs. @utierrez 5avid and Lucot $-


4/35

ithin the ti!e fi/ed for filing the !otion of protest. The bond !ay be given ithin areasonable ti!e after the a!ount is fi/ed by the court.

3fter the court has ac0uired jurisdiction of an election protest by the presentation of the!otion of protest ithin ti!e and proper notice is given and the bond has been filed, it

deprives the protestant of his right to be heared upon the !erits of his cause bydis!issing the protest and mandamusill issue to co!pel a reinstate!ent of the sa!eand a hearing upon the !erits.chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtual la library

In the case of De "astro vs. #alas and #antiago$-


5/35

said case and proceed ith the trial thereof upon the !erits and decide the sa!e inaccordance ith la. =o special finding as to costs is !ade. "oordered.chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtual la library


6/35


7/35

be reversed on appeal ? should this re!edy e/ist ? nevertheless such action is notsubject to revie in a mandamusproceeding.

%. $andamusis the proper re!edy only in cases here an inferior tribunal, corporation,board, or person unlafully neglects the perfor!ance of an act ith the la specially

enjoins as a duty resulting fro! an office, trust or station+ or unlafully e/cludes aperson fro! the use and enjoy!ent of a right or office to hich said person is entitledand fro! hich he is precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person,and there is no other plain, speedy and ade0uate re!edy in the ordinary course of la. .. . $"ee. ***, 3ct =o. %)A.& The rit ill not issue to co!pel an officer to do anythinghich it is not his duty to do, or to give to the applicant anything to hich he is notentitled by la. It neither confers poers nor i!poses duties. It is si!ply a co!!and toe/ercise a poer already possessed and to perfor! a duty already i!posed.$@onzalez vs.4oard of


8/35

-. 1henever a statute gives discretionary poer to any person, to be e/ercised by hi!upon his on appreciation of certain facts, such statute constitutes hi! the sole judge ofthe e/istence of those facts. $4arcelon vs.4a6er and 5oe Tho!pson, (


9/35

Bo., p. %-& ? :here amandamushas issued to an inferior tribunal co!!anding it toreverse or annul its decision, here the decision as in its nature a judicial act andithin the scope of its jurisdiction and discretion.:chanrobles virtual la library

(. The appoint!ent of a receiver during the pendency of the litigation is an interlocutory

!atter $ see secs. %*- and %7, Code of Civil


10/35

2= 43=C

G.R. No. L15721 "e0ember 27, 196

A!A"OR G. CA8IRAL,petitioner?appellee, vs. !ANILA ELECTRIC CO., INC., ET

AL.,respondents?appellants.

#omera and )aclig for petitioner(appellee.Ross' #elph and "arrascoso for respondents(appellants.

>n Eay *%, %)(8, 3!ador @. Capiral, presented ith the CFI of Eanila a petition forEanda!us and 5a!ages, directed against the Eanila 2lectric Co!pany and itsofficers, alleging that he had been illegally dis!issed and praying that the Eanila2lectric Co!pany be ordered to reinstate hi! to his position and to pay all his salariesat


11/35

(& >n =ove!ber *), %)(7, petitioner as advised by respondent an Boven that theposition of :=es


12/35

3fter trial, the loer court rendered judg!ent, the pertinent portions of hichread ?

*he "ourt has not seen an+ indication in the evidence that Amador ,as dismissed!ecause of his alleged union activities- %&hi!it Plaintiff ,ould even sho, the contrar+-

it is there seen that his o,n union deserted him in his fight ,ith the $eralco- accordingto $r. /.). Re+es' and the "ourt finds no reason to accept his testimon+' themanagement came to 0no, that Amador ,as a mem!er of the union after' not !eforethe discharge+ ... + it has yet to be deter!ined if this case here dis!issal had beenvalidly !ade+ for the best of !otives !ight produce bad results. ... the conclusion of the"ourt is that %&hi!it Plaintiff 1 ,hen under the same' plaintiff ,as made a permanentand regular emplo+ee' carried ,ith it the implication of clear permanence ,ith the resultthat the occupant could not !e e2ected 2ust li0e that' !+ calling for hime&temporaneousl+ and telling him that he ,as dismissed on the ground of a!olition ofhis position- and for the reason that under #ection 31 of the "ollective )argaining

Agreement' %&hi!it Plaintiff 4' onl+ temporar+ and pro!ationar+ emplo+ees could !e

dismissed in the sole discretion of the compan+' the "ourt ta0es this to mean that incontradistinction ,ith them' those ,ho are regular and permanent emplo+ees could not-so that as a corollar+' the latter categor+ of emplo+ees could remain until the age ofretirement and could !e dismissed !efore that' onl+ for 2ust cause+....chanroblesvirtualalibrarychanrobles virtual la library

I= I21 1B2;2>F, the Court desists fro! issuing the pere!ptory ritofmandamusbut orders reinstate!ent of plaintiff to his position, and conde!ns Eanila2lectric Co. to pay unto hi! his bac6 salary at


13/35

(& In not dis!issing the petition for mandamus.

The case at bar rests on the interpretation and application of the folloing legalprovisions, to it ?

"2CTI>= %. In cases of e!ploy!ent, ithout a definite ther causes analogous to any of the foregoing. $;. 3. =o. %A(*, as a!ended by;.3. =o. %787&

The do!inant issue posed, therefore, ould be hether the e!ploy!ent of Capiral isith or ithout a definite period. Capiral !aintains that upon the e/tension to hi! of aregular and per!anent e!ploy!ent, his e!ploy!ent ith the Eeralco beca!e so

i!pressed ith definitenessthat he should stop or6ing only after he shall havereached the age of retire!ent or co!pleted -A years service ith the co!pany. Eeralcoholds the contrary vie, contending that Capiral9s regular or per!anent appoint!ent didnot in any ay !a6e his e!ploy!ent ith a definite period, such regular appoint!enthaving been e/tended only to afford "apiral ,ith fringe !enefitsdue to per!anent orregular e!ployees, and not to !a6e his tenure of office ith a definiteperiod.chanroblesvirtualalibrarychanrobles virtual la library


14/35

The dis!issal of Capiral as not due to his affiliation ith the Union or union activities$unfair labor practice&. This is clear fro! the conte/t of the decision heretoforereproduced and the action ta6en by the Union, as per trial court9s finding. =o appealas ever ta6en by appellee against the decision on this issue. 3ppellants, in e/plaininghy the position of :nes photographer as abolished, proved that it as !ore

econo!ical to engage the services of an outside photographic advertiser, than having aregular :nes photographer:. The trial court recognized this fact hen it said# :and itas found out in due ti!e that Eeralco ould spend less by dispensing ith theservices of a regular nes photographic advertiser+ and here there is one proof thatdis!issal, Eeralco spent less for its photographic advertise!ents, 2/hs. %, * and -,defendants:. This being true, it ould appear that the separation of the appellee hereinas justified, under the la heretofore 0uoted. 2ven in the supposition that appellee9sdis!issal as ithout cause at all, still the appellants could ter!inate his servicesbecause his e!ploy!ent as not for a definite period.


15/35

period of emplo+ment' the emplo+ee ma+ 5uit at an+ time' and the emplo+er ma+dismiss him at an+ time' in either case even ,ithout cause' !+ giving one month noticein advance- in the a!sence of such notice the emplo+ee laid off or dismissed is entitledto one month pa+.chanroblesvirtualalibrarychanrobles virtual la library

This tradition right of the e!ployer to dis!iss his e!ployee ithout cause is properlyrecognized, !ay, ta6en for granted in the ne la $;epublic 3ct =o. %A(*& entitled :3=3CT T> I52 F>; TB2 E3==2; >F T2;EI=3TI=@ 2EKE2=T 1ITB>UT3 52FI=IT2 5 I= C>EE2;CI3L, I=5U"T;I3L, >; 3@;ICULTU;3L2"T34LI"BE2=T >; 2=T2;


16/35

EN BANC

G.R. No. L522 !/) 29, 195

GERONI!O "E LOS REES,


17/35


18/35

reconsideration as also denied, having been notified of the resolution of denial on=ove!ber %, %)(A+ that on the sa!e date, =ove!ber %, appellant filed a notice ofappeal ith the justice of the peace court depositing at the sa!e ti!e the re0uireddoc6et fees and cash appeal bond as re0uired by the ;ules of Court+ and that on=ove!ber %7, %)(A, repondent appellee Earia 4. Castro !oved for the i!!ediate

e/ecution of the judg!ent clai!ing that the sa!e has already beco!efinal.chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtual la library

3ppellants no contends that, upon the foregoing facts, the appeal he has interposedas still ithin the regle!entary period for the reason that, hen on =ove!ber %,%)(A, upon denial of his second !otion for reconsideration in the certioraricase he filedhis notice of appeal ith the justice of the peace court, the sa!e technically spea6ing,!ust be dee!ed to have been filed on the fourteenth day upon the theory that the filingof said petition for certiorarihas had the effect of interrupting the running of the period toappeal. In this connection, it should be recalled that hen the petition for certiorariasfiled ith the "upre!e Court only thirteen days of the regle!entary period had

transpired, and if e assu!e that the ti!e during hich the certioraricase as pendingbefore said court beco!e suspended or interrupted, it ould see! clear that the noticeof appeal as filed in due ti!e or ithin the fifteen?day period provided by the ;ules ofCourt.chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtual la library

;espondents, on the other hand, sustain the vie that the notice of appeal filed byappellant as out of ti!e for the reason that it as filed !ore than one year after thedecision of the justice of the peace had been rendered, and the fact that on thethirteenth day fro! receipt by hi! of the copy of the decision he filed ith the "upre!eCourt a petition for certiorari, furnishes no e/cuse or justification for the delay.;espondents contend that such petition did not have the effect of interrupting the period

to appeal for the reason that the sa!e does not have the nature or effect of a !otion forreconsideration. ;espondents further contend that, even if it be considered that the ritof the preli!inary injunction issued by the "upre!e Court could have the effect ofsuspending the period to appeal, such suspension ould be of no avail to appellant forthe reason that, hen such rit as issued, the period of tenty?one days fro! thereceipt of the copy of the decision had already elapsed. It is evident under these facts,respondents contend, that the appeal of appellant has been filed out ofti!e..chanroblesvirtualalibrary chanrobles virtual la library

1e do not subscribe to this vie. It should be noted that the petition for certiorarifiledby appellant ith this court ith the purpose of obtaining the revocation of the decisionof the justice of the peace, as coupled ith a petition for preli!inary injunction hichincludes not only a directive enjoining the justice of the peace fro! ta6ing any furtherstep or action in the case, but also a directive to suspend the period for the running ofthe period to appeal. 1e should note here that the rit of preli!inary injunction asgranted by the court as pra+ed for in the petition, hich includes not only thesuspension of further proceedings but the running of the period to appeal as ell,inas!uch as both petitions are included in the sa!e paragraph. 3nd considering thevery nature of a rit of preli!inary injunction, one cannot but conclude that its legal


19/35

effects are not only to enjoin the justice of the peace fro! issuing the rit of e/ecutionof the judg!ent rendered by hi! but also fro! ta6ing any action on the petition toappeal.chanroblesvirtualalibrarychanrobles virtual la library

It !ay be argued that the rit as issued by the Cler6 of Court pursuant to the directive of

this court does not !a6e any !ention of the suspension of the running of the period toappeal, but hile this !ay be true, it cannot be denied that this result co!es ell ithinthe purvie of the directive, for it stands to reason that hen the 'ustice of the


20/35

;epublic of the =

G.R. No. 163 $%) 23, 2336

8ILI88INE COCONUT AUTORIT,petitioner,vs.8RI!E; COCO 8RO"UCTS, INC.,respondent.

5 2 C I " I > =

CALLE$O, SR., J.ctober ), *AA* in C3?@.;. "< =o. A%*), and ;esolution dated Earch %), *AAdenying the !otion for reconsideration of the said decision.

T+e A(te0e&e(t

>n 3ugust *8, %)8*, 2/ecutive >rder $2.>.& =o. 8* as issued by the


21/35

>n >ctober *8, %)87, the L25, that upon reco!!endation of Eanage!ent, the grant of per!it toC> 5UCT", I=C. to operate a desiccated coconut processingplant in 4arrio Eangilag, Candelaria, Quezon, pursuant to 4oard ;esolution =o.A(8?87 and rder =o. AA*, "eries of %))%, be and is hereby

authorized and approved, subject to co!pliance ith the necessary re0uire!entand pertinent regulations of the 3uthority.

;2">L25 FI=3LLK, that the opening of the ne desiccated coconutprocessing of C> 5UCT", I=C. shall be subject to the finalapproval of the


22/35

fiber plant or any si!ilar coconut processing plant to apply ith I5F>; 42I=@ 3= U=5U2 22;CI"2 >F L2@I"L3TI2 12; 4K 3=

35EI=I"T;3TI2 4>5K.

II

3"I52 F;>E 42I=@ ULT;3?I;2", 4>3;5 ;2">LUTI>= =>. A%8?)- I"1ITB>UT 3=K 43"I", 3;4IT;3;K, U=;23">=34L2 3=5 TB2;2F>;2 I=I>L3TI>= >F "U4"T3=TI2 5U2 C2"" >F L31.

III

I= 3;5 ;2">LUTI>= =>. A%8?)-, ;2"=52=T L3T25 TB2 C25U;3L 5U2 C2"" ;2QUI;2E2=T >FC>="ULT3TI>= I525 I= ;52; =>. AA*,"2;I2" >F %))%.

The case as doc6eted as @.;. =o. %%A(*. 1hile the case as pending in this court,the


23/35

The Court ruled that, by approving ;esolution =o. A%8?)-, the


24/35

>n Earch %(, %))),


25/35

corresponding application for reneal of ;egistration Certificates ithin five $(&days fro! receipt hereof.

For 5C= plants, they shall further sub!it a sorn state!ent of the responsibleofficer of the said 5C= plants on the status of their co!pliance ith the

provisions of the Interi! @uidelines, rder =o. AA*, "eries of%))% on @uided 5eregulation, and such other issuances of the . =o. 8*.

%

>n 'anuary %8, *AAA, the ;TC rendered a 5ecision in favor of the petitioner andordered the U;"2 to the petition and to@;3=T the sa!e. ;espondents


26/35

issuance of a certificate of registration beco!es purely !inisterial on its part and hich,therefore, !ay be co!pelled by !anda!us.%8

F ;2@I"T;3TI>= I= F3>; >F ;2"=52=T B2;2I= E3K 42

C>E


27/35

of registration as issued pursuant to ;esolution =o. A?)*, as affir!ed by the Courtof 3ppeals, is final and conclusive upon this Court, particularly since it is borne by therecords and supported by substantial evidence. In a petition for revieon certiorariunder ;ule (, the Court is li!ited to revieing errors of la only. *7

Further, respondent contends that hen petitioner approved its application forregistration under ;esolution =o. A?)*, it is presu!ed that petitioner has already!ade the proper evaluation pursuant to "ection % of 2.>. =o. 8*, so that its renealbeco!es purely !inisterial. It posits that petitioner9s discretion lies only in applicationsrelating to the four situations enu!erated in the said "ection %# $%& establishing a neplant+ $*& e/panding the capacity of any e/isting desiccated plant+ $-& relocating anye/isting desiccated plant+ and $& upgrading the efficiencies of any e/isting desiccatedplant.


28/35

e/ercise of his on judg!ent upon the propriety or i!propriety of the act done. The dutyis !inisterial only hen the discharge of the sa!e re0uires neither the e/ercise ofofficial discretion or judg!ent.-%1hen an official is re0uired and authorized to do aprescribed act upon a prescribed contingency, his functions are !inisterial only, and!anda!us !ay be issued to control his action upon the happening of the

contingency.-*

For a rit of !anda!us to be issued, it is essential that petitioner should have a clearlegal right to the thing de!anded and it !ust be the i!perative duty of the respondentto perfor! the act re0uired. The rit neither confers poers nor i!poses duties. It issi!ply a co!!and to e/ercise a poer already possessed and to perfor! a dutyalready i!posed.--Eanda!us applies as a re!edy only here petitioner9s right isfounded clearly in la and not hen it is doubtful. -The rit ill not be granted here itsissuance ould be unavailing, nugatory, or useless.-(

If the la i!poses a duty upon a public officer and gives hi! the right to decide ho or

hen the duty shall be perfor!ed, such duty is discretionary and not !inisterial.

There is no doubt that under 2.>. =o. 8*, 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA-, "eries of%)8%, and 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA*, "eries of %))%, petitioner is vested ithdiscretion on hether or not to grant an application for the establish!ent of a ne plant,the e/pansion of capacity, the relocation or upgrading of efficiencies of such desiccatedcoconut processing plant. ;elative to the reneal of a certificate of registration,petitioner !ay refuse a registration unless the applicant has co!plied ith theprocedural and substantive re0uire!ents for reneal. Boever, once the re0uire!entsare co!plied ith, the reneal of registration beco!es a !inisterial function ofpetitioner.

Under "ection -.8 of 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA-, "eries of %)8%, -the rder=o. AA-, "eries of %)8%, all applications shall contain the e/act rated capacity
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt36


29/35

applied for and the actual production capacity and utilization of the plant for theyear i!!ediately folloing the date and year of the application+

%.* The rated capacity applied for and approved by rder e/cept the provisions in ite! %.( hereof+

Target Ear6et
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt37


30/35

In addition to the regular docu!entary re0uire!ents for registration, ne entrantsto the 5C= industry shall sub!it a sorn state!ent stating the na!es andaddresses of all ne tentative foreign buyers ith their respective volu!e of 5C=products as evidenced by the purchase orders or instru!ents evidencing thesa!e. The ctober *-, %)87 hen the


31/35

to the final approval of the


32/35

Eanda!us is never granted to co!pel the perfor!ance of an act until there has beenan actual, as distinguished fro! an anticipated, refusal to act. )This is true even if thereis a strong presu!ption that the persons ho! it is sought to coerce by the rit illrefuse to perfor! their duty hen the proper ti!e arrives.(AIts function is to co!pel theperfor!ance of a present e/isting duty as to hich there is default. It is not granted to

ta6e effect prospectively, and it conte!plates the perfor!ance of an act hich isincu!bent on respondent hen the application for a rit is !ade. (%

=EREORE, pre!ises considered, the petition is GRANTE". The 5ecision of theCourt of 3ppeals dated >ctober ), *AA*, and ;esolution dated Earch %), *AAare REVERSE"and SET ASI"E. The petition for !anda!us is "IS!ISSE".

SO OR"ERE".
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_163088_2006.html#fnt51


33/35

TBI;5 5II"I>=

G.R. No. 111455. "e0ember 2, 199>

!ARISSA A. !OSSESGEL",petitioner, vs. COURT O A88EALS /(& CIVILREGISTRAR GENERAL, respondents.

" E C I S I O N

8AR"O, J.

cases of mandamus

Documents