Rule 65P

PROHIBITION 5
RULE 65
PROHIBITION
ANG~CABRERA~CALDINO~CHUPUNGCO~JOSOL~MARAVILLA~SAGUINSIN~SAN JOSE~SUVA~TOLENTINO~TOLENTINO~UY
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (SBCA, Monday Class) S.Y 2012-2013
Page
100
PROHIBITION 5
PACIFICADOR, ET AL. VS COMELEC
G.R. No. 178259, March 13, 2009
Carpio Morales, J.
Digested By: San Jose, Rica Pauline B.
Facts:
During the May 14, 2007 elections, Arturo F. Pacificador and Jovito C. Plameras, Jr. (petitioners),
and Salvacion Z. Perez (private respondent), then the incumbent Governor of Antique, ran as
candidates for the position of Governor. Alleging violation of Section 261, paragraphs O, V and W
of the Omnibus Election Code, petitioners filed on April 23, 2007 with the Office of the Provincial
Election Supervisor a case for disqualification (disqualification case) against respondent and other
members of the Nationalist Peoples Coalition-Antique ticket.
After the elections or on May 18, 2007, petitioners filed a petition for suspension of the canvassing
of votes for the position of Governor and/or suspension of the proclamation of private respondent
before the COMELEC. They alleged that the canvassing of votes on May 15, 2007 by the
Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) composed of Atty. Gil Barcenal as Chairman, Prosecutor
Napoleon Abiera as Vice-Chairman, and Corazon Brown as Member-Secretary (Barcenal PBOC)
was attended by fraud because the election returns were prepared under duress and bore
fraudulent entries. By Resolution of May 21, 2007, the Barcenal PBOC ruled against petitioner
Pacificador due to insufficiency of evidence, hence, he appealed to the COMELEC.
In the meantime, the COMELEC First Division, by Resolution, dismissed petitioners PBOC appeal
and created a new PBOC to be composed of Atty. Renato A. Mabutay as Chairman, Atty. Tomas
Valera as Vice-Chairman, and Atty. Elizabeth Doronila as Member-Secretary (Mabutay PBOC). It
noted that petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal on May 21, 2007, but that no appeal was filed
within five days as required under Sec. 20 (f) of Republic Act No. 7166 and Sec. 9 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
In the interregnum, private respondent filed before the COMELEC an "Urgent Motion to Reconvene
the New PBOC of Antique and Proclaim the Winning Candidate for the Position of Governor Down
to the Position of Sangguniang Panlalawigan." Acting on said Motion, the COMELEC First Division
issued a Resolution relieving the Mabutay PBOC and creating, in its stead, a still another PBOC
composed of respondents Atty. Daisy Real, Atty. Jessie Suarez and Atty. Mavil Majarucon
(Majarucon PBOC) as Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Member-Secretary, respectively, and
ordering it to convene and proclaim the winning candidates. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Page
101
PROHIBITION 5
Whether or not the Resolution is void ab initio as it was issued only by a Division, in contravention
of Secs. 5 and 6, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provide that any Motion for
Reconsideration filed before the COMELEC pertaining to any resolution, order or ruling of a
Division shall be heard by the COMELEC en banc?
Held:
The petition is bereft from merit. It bears noting that pursuant to Rule 18 of the Omnibus Election
Code, decisions and resolutions of any division of the COMELEC in special cases become final
and executory after the lapse of five days, unless a timely motion for reconsideration is lodged with
the COMELEC en banc.
Clearly, not only does prohibition not lie against the COMELEC First Division which has the
mandate and power to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies; the assailed Resolution
has also become final and executory in view of the failure of petitioners to file a timely motion for
reconsideration of said Resolution in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and the
Rules of Court.
In another vein, instead of filing a timely motion for reconsideration of the June 22, 2007 Resolution
with the COMELEC en banc, petitioners filed the present action directly with the Court on June 26,
2007, without, it bears reiteration, attaching thereto a copy of the assailed Resolution, and of proof
of service of a copy thereof on the COMELEC and the adverse party, as required under Sec. 5 of
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Such fatal defect precludes petitioners from now invoking the Courts
intervention to nullify the COMELEC June 22, 2007 Resolution and invalidate the acts of the
Marajucon PBOC.
Private respondent having been proclaimed as Governor, discussion of the issues raised in the
disqualification case is rendered unnecessary.
Page
102
PROHIBITION 5
GERARDO RIVERA, ET AL. VS HON. EDGARDO ESPIRITU

G.R. No. 135547, January 23, 2002
Quisumbing, J.
Facts:
On September 17, 1998, PAL informed the Inter-Agency Task Force created to address the
problems of the ailing flag carrier, that it was shutting down its operations effective September 23,
1988, claiming that given its labor problems, rehabilitation was no longer feasible.
The next day, the PAL Employees Association (PALEA) sought the intervention of the Office of the
President to prevent the imminent closure of PAL. On September 23, PAL ceased its operations
and sent notices of termination to its employees. Two days later, PAWLA offered a 10-year
moratorium on strikes and similar actions and a waiver of some of the economic benefits in the
existing CBA.
Page
103
PROHIBITION 5
On September 27, 2988, the PAWLA board again wrote the President proposing terms and
conditions, subject to ratification by the general membership. These include the suspension of the
PAL-PALEA CBA for a period of ten years, PALs continuing recognition of PALEA as the certified
bargaining agent of the regular rank and file ground employees of the company, respect for the
union shop/maintenance of membersip provision under the PAL-PALEA CBA and no salary
deduction with full medical benefits. The PAL management accepted the PALEA proposal and the
necessary referendum was scheduled. Of the votes cast, 61% of favored the PAL-PALEA
agreement.
On October 7, 1998, PAL resumed operations. On the same date, seven officers and members of
PALEA filed a petition to annul the agreement on the following grounds:
1) Grave abuse of discretion by public respondents in actively pursuing the PAL-PALEA agreement
on the constitutional right to self-organization and collective bargaining cannot be waived nor the
waiver ratified
2) Public respondents gravely abused their discretion and exceeded their jurisdiction in presiding
over the conclusion of PAL-PALEA agreement under threat of abusive exercise of PALs
management prerogative to close business used as subterfuge for union-busting.
Issue:
Whether or not the orginal action for certiorari and prohibition is the proper remedy to annul the
PAL-PALEA agreement?
Held:
No. The assailed agreement does not meet the essential requirements for certiorari under Rule 65.
What exists is a contract between a private firm and one of its labor unions, albeit entered into with
the assistance of the Task Force. The object of the action is actually the nullification of the PALPALEA agreement. As such, the proper remedy is an ordinary civil action for annulment of contract,
an action which properly belongs to the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Page
104
PROHIBITION 5
JOSE VERA VS JOSE AVELINO
G.R. No. L-543, August 31, 1946
Bengzon, J.
Facts:
Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946 to the President and the Congress of the
Philippines a report regarding the national elections held the previous month. It stated that by
reason of certain specified acts of terrorism and violence in the province of Pampanga, Nueva
Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in said region did not reflect the true and free expression of
the popular will.
During the session, when the senate convened on May 25, 1946, a pendatum resolution was
approved referring to the report ordering that Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero
who had been included among the 16 candidates for senator receiving the highest number of
votes, proclaimed by the Commissions on Elections shall not be sworn, nor seated, as members
of the chamber, pending the termination of the of the protest lodged against their election.
Petitioners thus immediately instituted an action against their colleagues responsible for the
resolution, praying for an order to annul it and compelling respondents to permit them to occupy
their seats and to exercise their senatorial prerogative. They also allege that only the Electoral
Tribunal had jurisdiction over contests relating to their election, returns and qualifications.
Respondents
assert
the
validity
of
the
pendatum
resolution.
Issues:
1. Whether the Commission on Elections has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not votes
cast in the said provinces are valid?
2. Whether administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose Romero
should be deferred pending hearing and decision on the protests lodged against their elections?
Held:
The Supreme Court refused to intervene, under the concept of separation of powers, holding that
the case was not a contest, and affirmed that it is the inherent right of the legislature to determine
who shall be admitted to its membership. Following the powers assigned by the Constitution, the
question raised was political in nature and therefore not under the juridical review of the courts.
Page
105
PROHIBITION 5
THE NACIONALISTA PARTY VS FELIX ANGELO BAUTISTA
G.R. No. L-3452, December 7, 1949
Padilla, J.
Facts:
Petitioner Nacionalista Party alleges that it is organized and registered under the laws of the
Philippines, brought this action praying that a writ of prohibition issue commanding the respondent
Solicitor General to desist forever from acting as acting member of the Commission on Elections
under the designation rendered to him by President Quirino, unless he is legally appointed as
regular member of the said Commission on Elections.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner, a political party is entitled to bring an action in the courts of justice?
Held:
It may be organized and registered as a political party in or with the Commission on Elections for
the purposes of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180), but for the purpose of bringing
an action in the courts of justice such organization and registration are not sufficient. It has to be
incorporated under Act 1459 for only natural or juridical persons may be parties in a civil action, but
this technical defect may be cured by allowing the substitution of the real parties in interest for the
petitioner.
The petitioner is granted five days within which to amend its petition so as to substitute the real
parties in interest for it (the petitioner) or to show that it is a juridical person entitled to institute
these proceedings. Otherwise, or if the petitioner does not amend its petition or does not show that
it is a juridical entity, the petition will be dismissed. After the amendment or showing referred to
shall have been made, the writ prayed for will issue.
Page
106
PROHIBITION 5
MONTES VS COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 143797, May 4, 2006
Tinga, J.
Facts:
OMB-ADM-0-98-0556 is the administrative complaint filed by complainants therein Imelda D.
Rodriguez and Elizabeth Fontanilla against Carlito L. Montes, Chief of the Legal Division of DOST,
for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service. Rodriguez and
Fontanilla alleged that on 15 July 1999, while Montes was in the process of adducing evidence
against Rodriguez and the DOST Secretary in the complaint for misconduct he had filed against
them before the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC), Montes
produced a tape recording of a private conversation he had had with the DOST Secretary. Montes
admitted that he had taped the conversation at the DOST Secretarys Office without the DOST
Secretarys knowledge and consent a few days after 28 November 1993. Montes publicly played
the illegal tape recording during the hearing. During cross-examination, Montes likewise admitted
that he had also recorded a private conversation he had with Fontanilla at the DOST Office in
Taguig sometime in November 1997. This was without the knowledge and consent of Fontanilla.
The Ombudsman found Montes guilty of grave misconduct and suspended him for one (1) year
without pay. The Ombudsman held that Montes taping of his conversations with Fontanilla was
prohibited by R.A. 4200, the Anti-Wiretapping Law. Montes did not deny that he made the recording
without the Fontanillas consent.
In an Order dated 2 March 2000, the Ombudsman denied Montes motion for reconsideration and
affirmed the Decision dated 17 January 2000. Hence, Montes filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with prayer for temporary restraining order before the
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied outright Montes petition.
Issue:
Whether Montes is entitled to the issuance of a writ of prohibition enjoining the DOST Secretary
from enforcing the suspension order?
Held:
No. Montes failed to adequately show that there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to warrant the issuance of a writ of prohibition. For a
party to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, he must establish the following requisites: (a) it must be
directed against a tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising functions, judicial or ministerial;
(b) the tribunal, corporation, board or person has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion; and (c) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Page
107
PROHIBITION 5
GONZALES VS NARVASA
G.R. No.140835. August 14, 2000
Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
Facts:
On November 26, 1998, by virtue of Executive Order (EO) No. 43, President Joseph Estrada
created the Philippine Commission on Constitutional Reform(PCCR), in order to study and recommend
proposed amendments and/or revisions to the 1987 Constitution, and the manner of implementing the
same. Under Section 7 of EO 43, the amount of P3,000,000 is appropriated for its operational expenses to
be sourced from the funds of the Office of the President. Petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, in his capacity as a
taxpayer and a citizen, assailed the constitutionality of the creation of PCCR and of the positions of
presidential consultants, advisers and assistants. Petitioner asked the court to enjoin the PCCR and the
presidential consultants, advisers and assistants from acting as such. Petitioner also sought to enjoin the
Commission on Audit (COA) from passing in audit expenditures for the PCCR and the presidential
consultants, advisers and assistants. Petitioner anchored his petition on two grounds: (1)he contended that
PCCR is a public office which only the legislature can create by way of law; and (2) he asserted that by
creating the PCCR, the President is intervening in a process from which he is totally excluded by the
Constitution, which is the amendment of the fundamental charter.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to file the case?
Held:
In assailing the constitutionality of EO 43, petitioner asserts his interest as a citizen and taxpayer.
A citizen acquires standing only if he can establish that he has suffered some actual or threatened
injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to
the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be addressed by a favorable action. Petitioner has
not shown that he has sustained or in danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the
creation of the PCCR and of the positions of presidential consultants, advisers and assistants.
Neither does he claim that his rights or privileges have been or are in danger of being violated, nor
that he shall be subjected to any penalties or burdens as a result of the issues raised.
In his capacity as a taxpayer, a taxpayer is deemed to have the standing to raise a constitutional
issue when it is established that public funds have disbursed in alleged contravention of the law or
the Constitution. Thus, payers action is properly brought only when there is an exercise by
Congress of its taxing or spending power. In the creation of PCCR, it is apparent that there is no
exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power. The PCCR was created by the President by
virtue of EO 43 as amended by EO 70. The appropriations for the PCCR were authorized by the
President, not by Congress. The funds used for the PCCR were taken from funds intended for the
Office of the President, in the exercise of the Chief Executives power to transfer funds pursuant to
Sec. 25(5) of Art. VI of the Constitution. As to the creation of the positions of presidential
consultants, advisers and assistants, the petitioner has not alleged the necessary facts so as to
enable the Court to determine if he possesses a taxpayers interest in this particular issue.
Page
108
PROHIBITION 5
PATRICIO TAN ET AL. VS COMELEC
G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986
Alampay, J.
Facts:
This case was prompted by the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885, An Act Creating a New
Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of Negros del Norte, effective Dec. 3,
1985. (Cities of Silay, Cadiz and San Carlos and the municipalities of Calatrava, Taboso,
Escalante, Sagay, Manapla, Victorias, E.R. Magalona, and Salvador Benedicto proposed to belong
to the new province).
Pursuant to and in implementation of this law, the COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for January 3,
1986. Petitioners opposed, filing a case for Prohibition and contending that the B.P. 885 is
unconstitutional and not in complete accord with the Local Government Code because:
The voters of the parent province of Negros Occidental, other than those living within the territory
of the new province of Negros del Norte, were not included in the plebiscite.
The area which would comprise the new province of Negros del Norte would only be about
2,856.56 sq. km., which is lesser than the minimum area prescribed by the governing statute, Sec.
197 of LGC.
Issue:
Whether or not the plebiscite was legal and complied with the constitutional requisites of the
Consititution, which states that Sec. 3. No province, city, municipality or barrio may be created,
divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the
criteria established in the Local Government Code, and subject to the approval by a majority of the
votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected?
Held:
No. Whenever a province is created, divided or merged and there is substantial alteration of the
boundaries, the approval of a majority of votes in the plebiscite in the unit or units affected must
first be obtained. The creation of the proposed new province of Negros del Norte will necessarily
result in the division and alteration of the existing boundaries of Negros Occidental (parent
province).
Plain and simple logic will demonstrate that two political units would be affected. The first would be
the parent province of Negros Occidental because its boundaries would be substantially altered.
Page
109
PROHIBITION 5
The other affected entity would be composed of those in the area subtracted from the mother
province to constitute the proposed province of Negros del Norte. SC pronounced that the
plebscite has no legal effect for being a patent nullity.
Page
110

Rule 65P

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 65P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROHIBITION 5

GERARDO RIVERA, ET AL. VS HON. EDGARDO ESPIRITU

You might also like