EN BANC G.R. No.

24627 September 16, 1925

CARLOS VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, vs. T E ONORABLE E!ILIO ARANETA "IA#, $%&'e o( &%t) o* t+e Co%rt o* ,-r.t I(.t/(0e o* L/ U(-o(, /(& ARNUL,O 1UE#A"A,Respondents. The purpose of this mandamus proceeding is to have an order issued by this court, directing the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of La Union to reinstate the election protest presented by the petitioner against the other respondent Quezada, ho had 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 accordance ith la .chanroblesvirtuala library 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 lo er court, the contestant gave a bond on the %,th of the sa!e !onth+ $-& that on 'uly *, %)*(, the respondent Quezada filed a general denial against the !otion of protest+ $.& that on 'uly %- of the sa!e year, the respondent 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 the la , for the very reason that the pleadings of record sho that the !otion of protest as presented ithin the ti!e prescribed by the la + $,& that the petitioner has no other e/pedient and legal re!edy in the ordinary course of la , e/cept this mandamusproceeding.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library To the foregoing co!plaint, the respondent filed a de!urrer, alleging that the fact therein set forth do not constitute a cause of action justifying the issuance by this court of the mandamus applied for.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library It is a fact ad!itted by both parties in this proceeding that the respondent judge dis!issed the protest in 0uestion on the ground that it as not alleged in the protest that the sa!e as presented ithin the legal period, nor as any evidence presented of this fact.chanroblesvirtuala library 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 evidence about the certificate, 2/hibit 3, of the !unicipal board of canvassers stating the votes cast 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 of the candidacy for the different !unicipal offices of said !unicipality+ the procla!ation of those elected for the !unicipal offices of said !unicipality $2/hibit 5&+ and the su!!ons served upon the respondents by the sheriff $2/hibit 2&. 3fter the introduction of this evidence the protestant rested, and the attorneys for the respondent 3rnulfo Quezada

!oved for the dis!issal of the case on the ground that the date of the filing of the protest as not proven, nor as the date hen the bond as given, hich facts are jurisdictional according to the protestee.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library The la provides that protests of this nature !ust be presented ithin t o ee6s after the procla!ation of the candidates $sec. .7) of the 2lection La , as a!ended&+ it says nothing about the giving of the bond $sec. .8* of the sa!e la &. 3n e/a!ination of the protest ill sho that there is not in it any allegation that it as presented ithin the legal period above !entioned, nor as any evidence introduced of this fact. 3bout this contention of protestee9s counsel, the attorney for the protestant argues that there appeared sta!ped on the !otion of protest a !ar6 hich says :Court of First Instance, ;eceived 'une %(, %)*(, "an Fernando, La Union, <.I,: and this sho s that this protest as presented on the date stated in said sta!p. Upon this point the protestant has not sho n ho uses this sta!p, nor as the cler6 of this court presented to prove that it as he ho received this protest on the date of 'une %(th of this year stated in said sta!p. =or is there in the protest any allegation that the sa!e as filed ithin the legal period.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library In vie of the absence of this proof, the court holds that the protestant has not proven the date of the filing of this protest, and this proof being a fact essential for this court to ac0uire jurisdiction in election contests, this protest is dis!issed ith the costs against the contestant. 3s the 0uestion involves a ruling of the lo er court in a !unicipal election contest herein no appeal is allo ed under the 2lection La , the protestant has co!e to this court through a mandamus proceeding. It is a ell recognized rule that here the perfor!ance of an official duty or act involves the e/ercise of judg!ent or discretion, the officer cannot ordinarily be controlled ith respect to the particular action he ill ta6e in the !atter+ he can only be directed to act, leaving the !atter as to hat particular action he ill ta6e to his deter!ination. . . . $%8 ;. C. L., p. %*..& 4ut :if there is an arbitrary abuse of discretion, the court recognize that this is an e/ception to the general rule, and mandamus !ay issue if there is no other ade0uate re!edy, though the result is that the court is called upon to revie the e/ercise of a discretionary po er. 3s has been said in this connection it is not accurate to say that the rit ill not issue to control discretion, for it is ell settled that it !ay issue to correct an abuse of discretion, if the case is other ise proper. . . . $ Id., p. %*,.& chanrobles virtual la library The reinstate!ent of a cause has been held to be the e/ercise of a judicial function not controllable by mandamus. 3n appeal generally lying here a justice has rongfully dis!issed an action. "o, it has been ruled, the dis!issal of proceedings for hat of prosecution is discretionary ith the court before hich the proceedings are pending,

and a rit of mandamus ill not issue for the reinstate!ent thereof unless !anifest injustice ould other ise result. =or, it has been held, ill mandamus lie to co!pel a court to reinstate a cause dis!issed on the ground that the record brought up as not sub!itted in the for! prescribed by the rules of court. >n the other hand, it has been held that mandamus to 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 its general po er of superintending control, but no order ill be !ade as to hat decision the court shall render as to any 0uestion involved, or as to the course it shall pursue in disposing of the cause. Thus, it has been ruled, under its supervisory jurisdiction, an appellate court has the authority to instruct a court of original jurisdiction to reinstate a case 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 po er of general supervision over inferior court ill be e/ercised to co!pel the reinstate!ent and trial of a case, dis!issed by the inferior court on the ground of insufficiency in the pleading, here no appeal is possible. 1here the rights of a person beneficially interested in a suit ould be prejudiced by a dis!issal by plaintiff of record, mandamus ill lie to reinstate the case in the absence of another ade0uate re!edy. $%8 ;. C. L., pp -*%?-%-, par. *(,.& chanrobles virtual la library In the case of Nisperos vs. Araneta Diaz and Flores, ;. @. =o. *.((*, recently decided by this court $"epte!ber %A, %)*(, p. 8A,, ante& e have held, in the first place, that the ti!e for filing a protest is a !atter of judicial record and the lo er court having said record under its control !ay deter!ine by itself hether or not the protest as presented ithin the legal period, irrespective of any allegation that !ay be !ade in the protest relative to the ti!e of the filing thereof+ and secondly, that the o!ission of the allegation relative to the filing of the protest is not necessarily fatal to the protestant, even under the doctrine laid do n in Ferrer vs. @utierrez 5avid and Lucot $.- <hil., 7)(&, for the courts !ust not, upon a !ere technicality, shut their eyes to the reality. 3nd in the body of the opinion in the =isperos case, supra, e said# :... 1hat the la re0uires is that the protest should be filed ith the court ithin the legal ter!. It having been, as it is, ad!itted in the instant case by the respondent that the protest as presented ithin the legal period, there can be no sufficient ground for raising this 0uestion. If it is undisputable that the protest in 0uestion as presented to the court ithin the legal period, then this essential fact e/ists, hich gave the court jurisdiction to try and decide said protest.:chanrobles virtual la library In the case of Ancheta and Aguilar vs. Judge of First Instance of La Union and erceles$.A <hil., 7-&, these 0uestions ere raised# $ a& 1hether or not the bond as filed in due ti!e+ $ !& hether or not the la authorized the judge to dis!iss said protest+ and $ c& hether or not mandamus should issue to co!pel the respondent judge to reinstate said protest, and proceed to decide the 0uestions at issue. This court, after e/a!ining sections .7) and .8* of the 3d!inistrative Code, rendered a per curiam decision, holding# 1hile the la prohibits the court fro! entering a !otion of protest in election cases, until the protestant gives a bond in a!ount to be fi/ed by it, the bond need not be given

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

ithin a

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 by dis!issing the protest and mandamus ill issue to co!pel a reinstate!ent of the sa!e and a hearing upon the !erits.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library In the case of De "astro vs. #alas and #antiago $-. <hil., 8%8&, this court, in ordering and decreeing the issuance of mandamus applied for, said# The respondents further argue that the Court of First Instance having jurisdiction in the pre!ises to consider the 0uestions presented by the petitioner in his :!otion,: it had jurisdiction to decide all of the 0uestions presented. That contention is true if e li!it his jurisdiction to hear and deter!ine 0uestions presented upon their !erits. 4ut hen it is alleged that the court refused to consider the 0uestions upon their !erits and erroneously dis!issed the action upon a construction of so!e 0uestion of la or of practice preli!inary to final hearing, e have an entirely different 0uestion presented. =o rule of la is better established than the one that provides that mandamus ill not issue to control the discretion of an officer of a court, hen honestly e/ercised and hen such po er and authority is not abused. 3 distinction ho ever !ust be !ade bet een a case here the rit of mandamus is sought to control the decision of the court upon the !erits of the cause and cases here the court refused to go into the !erits of the action, upon an erroneous vie of the la or practice. If the court has erroneously dis!issed an action upon a preli!inary objection and upon an erroneous construction of the la , then mandamus is the proper re!edy to co!pel it to reinstate the action and to proceed to hear it upon its !erits. . . . 3pplying the doctrines cited in the case at bar, it see!s to us clear that the respondent judge, in refusing to ta6e cognizance of the protest in 0uestion, and dis!issing it on the ground that the date of the filing of the sa!e had not been proven, has co!!itted and abuse of discretion in rejecting as evidence the sta!p of the lo er court !ar6ed on the sa!e protest, indicating the date hen the sa!e as filed. The original protest filed in the cler69s office is a part of the court9s record, and hen it appears fro! said sta!p of the court that it as presented ithin the legal period, there is every presu!ption in favor of the proposition that it as really presented ithin that period, and the party attac6ing said presu!ption has the burden of proof that the sta!p of the lo er court had been unduly !ar6ed on the protest. 1hen fro! the record there appears :Court of First Instance, ;eceived 'une %(, %)*(, "an Fernando, La Union,: there is no need of re0uiring the protestant to present any further evidence of this fact.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library For all of the foregoing, it !ust be ordered and decreed that a rit be issued fro! this court ordering the respondent judge, the Bonorable 2!ilio 3raneta 5iaz, to annull and set aside the order entered by hi! dis!issing the !otion of the protestant, to reinstate

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

G.R. No. L245346 $%5) 23, 1966 SERA,IN SANSON, Petitioner, vs. CONRA"O BARRIOS, $%&'e o* t+e Co%rt o* ,-r.t I(.t/(0e o* I5o-5o, AL,RE"O SANSON, EVA SANSON, ANTONIO 7USA7 /(& ISABEL ARANETA,Respondents. y In previous mandamus proceedings bet een the sa!e parties $@. ;. =o. ..,-- C,* <hil., )7(D&, entitled :"erafin "anson vs. The Bon. Conrado 4arrios, et al.: this court granted the rit prayed for and directed the respondent judge to :consider and decide on its !erits, in accordance ith the evidence sub!itted by the parties, the ne petition for the appoint!ent of a receiver: filed by the plaintiff in civil case =o. )*A8 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, entitled :"erafin "anson, plaintiff, vs. Isabel 3raneta et al., defendants.:chanrobles virtual la library In co!pliance ith the order of this court a hearing as held on the said petition and the sa!e as after ards denied by the respondent judge on the ground that the facts brought out by the evidence did not sho the necessity of appointing a receiver. =o co!es the petitioner ith an application for a rit of mandamus alleging :that the evidence presented a!ply justifies the i!!ediate appoint!ent of a receiver+ that the harvest season is in full s ing and the appoint!ent of a receiver is i!peratively and absolutely necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner: ho ill, other ise, sustain :irreparable da!age:+ that hile :the respondent judge has discretion to deter!ine the necessity for an appoint!ent of a receiver,: nevertheless his refusal to appoint a receiver :is a gross abuse of discretion on his part and a great injustice to the herein petitioner:+ and that there is no plain, speedy and ade0uate re!edy, e/cept the one prayed for, to correct this abuse of discretion.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library The allegations contained in the petition fail, in our opinion, to !a6e a case for the issuance of a rit of mandamus. There is no sho ing that the petitioner has a clear legal right to the rit de!anded or that it is the i!perative duty of the respondent judge, clearly and pere!ptorily enjoined by la , to perfor! the act re0uired, hich in this case is the appoint!ent of a receiver in civil case =o. )*A8. There is, on the contrary, the plain ad!ission on the part of the petitioner $ see last paragraph, p. %- of the petition& that the fact for the perfor!ance of hich e are as6ed to co!pel the respondent judge, falls ithin judicial discretion. It is suggested by the allegations of the petition that the rit of mandamus !ay be resorted to as a re!edy by hich this court !ay revie the correctness of the action of the respondent judge in a !atter falling ithin his discretion, and that this court !ay substitute its judg!ent for the judg!ent of the respondent judge as to the !erits of the evidence sub!itted in support of the petition for the appoint!ent of a receiver. 1e believe, ho ever, that even if the action ta6en by the respondent judge as not justified in vie of the evidence presented in the case and !ay therefore

be reversed on appeal ? should this re!edy e/ist ? nevertheless such action is not subject to revie in a mandamus proceeding. %. $andamus is the proper re!edy only in cases here an inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person unla fully neglects the perfor!ance of an act ith the la specially enjoins as a duty resulting fro! an office, trust or station+ or unla fully e/cludes a person fro! the use and enjoy!ent of a right or office to hich said person is entitled and 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 anything hich it is not his duty to do, or to give to the applicant anything to hich he is not entitled by la . It neither confers po ers nor i!poses duties. It is si!ply a co!!and to e/ercise a po er already possessed and to perfor! a duty already i!posed. $@onzalez vs. 4oard of <har!acy, *A <hil., -,7+ Eontalbo vs."anta!aria, (. <hil., )((, ),..& It is an e/traordinary re!edy, to be resorted to for the purpose of securing judicial action, not for deter!ining in advance hat that action shall be. $ %& parte 1agner, *.) U. "., .,(, .7%.&chanrobles virtual la library It is ell established that only specific legal rights are enforceable by mandamus, that the right sought to be enforced !ust be certain and clear, and that the rit ill not issue in cases here the right is doubtful. $Fiuda e Bijos de Crispulo Ga!ora vs. 1right and "egado, (- <hil., ,%-, ,*%+ @onzalez vs.4oard of <har!acy, *A <hil., -,7+ Eontalbo vs. "anta!aria, (. <hil., )((, ),..& It is also a funda!ental principle governing the issuance of mandamus that the duties to be perfor!ed !ust be such as are clearly and pere!ptorily enjoined by la or by reason of official station. $Tabigue vs. 5uvall, %, <hil., -*.+ @onzalez vs. 4oard of <har!acy, supra+ Eontalbo vs. "anta!aria, supra.& The record does not sho that the right the petitioner see6s to enforce and the duty clai!ed to devolve upon the respondent judge are of such character.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library *. Under section %7. of the Code of Civil <rocedure the appoint!ent of a receiver lies ithin the sound discretion of the court. $Eendoza vs. 3revalo and 4. de 3rellano, -, <hil., ().& In the 3!erican courts the sa!e principle obtains. $(8 C. '., -..& It is not a !atter of strict or absolute right or an i!perative re0uire!ent. $ Id.& 2ven hen stipulated for by the parties the appoint!ent of a receiver is not a !atter of right. $Carolina <ortland Ce!ent Co. vs. 4au!gartner, )) Fla., )87.& <erhaps the rule, ith reference to the discretion of the trial court in such !atter, !ay be e/pressed !ore e/actly by stating that hen the party applying for the appoint!ent of a receiver pending the litigation has !ade a sho ing entitling hi!, upon so!e recognized rule, to have a receiver appointed, it is then ithin the sound discretion of the trial court to appoint or not a receiver. In the absence of such sho ing, the appoint!ent of a receiver is outside the discretion of the trial court, in e/cess of its po er, and is an abuse of discretion reposed on hi!. $'ac6son vs. 1ard, %%% >6l., 7-+ *-8 <ac., .*).&chanrobles virtual la library

-. 1henever a statute gives discretionary po er to any person, to be e/ercised by hi! upon his o n appreciation of certain facts, such statute constitutes hi! the sole judge of the e/istence of those facts. $4arcelon vs. 4a6er and 5oe Tho!pson, ( <hil., 87.& 5iscretion, hen applied to public functionaries, !eans a po er or right conferred upon the! by la of acting officially, under certain circu!stances, according to the dictates of their o n judg!ents and consciences, uncontrolled by the judg!ents or consciences of others. 3 purely !inisterial act or duty, in contradistinction to a discretional act, is one hich an officer or tribunal perfor!s in a given state of facts, in a prescribed !anner, in obedience to the !andate of legal authority, ithout regard to or the e/ercise of his o n judg!ent, upon the propriety or i!propriety of the act done. 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. The duty is !inisterial only hen the discharge of the sa!e re0uires neither the e/ercise of official discretion nor judg!ent. $La!bvs. <hipps ** <hil., .(,.& $andamus ill not lie to control the e/ercise of discretion of an inferior tribunal $Carranceja vs. Eoir and >ng?"aco, -A <hil., -)*+ ;ural Transit Co. vs. Teodoro and "antos?;elucio?"oriano, (7 <hil., %%+ La!b vs. <hipps, supra+ Felis!ino vs. @loria, .7 <hil., ,)7+ @uanio vs.Fernandez, (( <hil., 8%.+ Eontalbo vs. "anta!aria, supra&, hen the act co!plained of is either judicial or 0uasi?judicial. $Fran6 H Co. vs. Cle!ente, .. <hil., -A.& It is the proper re!edy hen the case presented is outside of the e/ercise of judicial discretion. $ %& parte Co!!on ealth of Firginia, %AA U. "., -%-.&chanrobles virtual la library .. $andamus is ordinarily a re!edy for official inaction, and in a large nu!ber of decisions it is either held or said that mandamus is not the proper re!edy to co!pel the undoing of acts already done or the correction of rongs already perpetrated, and that this is so even though the action ta6en as clearly illegal. $-8 C. '., ()*+ @uanio vs. Fernandez, (( <hil., 8%., 8%(.& >rdinarily the rit ill not be granted to revie the action of the court in respect to the appoint!ent and control of receivers and of the property in their custody, although its discretion in the !atter has been i!properly e/ercised. $-8 C. '., ,(,.& It is a rule of general application that mandamus ill not be granted for the purpose of revie , that the rit is not available as a substitute for an appeal or rit of error, or certiorari. The state!ent is fre0uently found in the boo6s that mandamus is not a rit to correct errors, but that its province is rather to prevent a failure of justice fro! delay or refusal to act. $-8 C. '., p. (7A, ...& $andamus is a co!pulsory not a revisory rit. $"tate vs. "tate 4oard of 20ualization, (, Eontana, .%-.& 3ppeal, and not mandamus, is the proper !ode of bringing up for revie the correctness of the action of the court belo in deciding hich one of t o applicants is entitled to be substituted for a deceased party to a suit. $ %& parte "later, ,* La . ed., p. ,*%.& 4ut even if no appeal is given by la mandamus can not be used to revie the judicial action of an inferior court. $3!erican Construction Co. vs. 'ac6sonville, Ta!pa H Iey 1est ;ail ay Co., %.8 U. "., -7*, -7)+ %8 ;. C. L., *)7.& $andamus is not the appropriate re!edy to revie the action of a tribunal in any !atter involving the e/a!ination of evidence and the decision of 0uestions of la and fact, since such a duty is not !inisterial. In other ords, mandamus is not the proper re!edy by hich to correct or reverse erroneous rulings of inferior tribunals, hether interlocutory or final. :. . . e are not a are of any case: ? said Chief 'ustice Taney in %& parte "eco!be $%)

Bo ., p. %-& ? : here a mandamus has issued to an inferior tribunal co!!anding it to reverse or annul its decision, here the decision as in its nature a judicial act and ithin 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 <rocedure&. $andamus does not issue to revie a ruling or interlocutory order !ade in the progress of a cause. $%8 ;. C. L., *)).& It !ay not be resorted to for the purpose of controlling !inor orders !ade in the conduct of judicial proceedings. $ %& parte 1agner, *.) U. "., .,(, .7%.&chanrobles virtual la library ,. It is true that if there is an arbitrary abuse of discretion the courts recognize that this is an e/ception to the general rule, and mandamus !ay issue if there is no other ade0uate re!edy, though the result is that the court ill be called upon to revie the e/ercise of a discretionary po er. $%8 ;. C. L., p. %*,.& "uch revie is allo ed because the po er of discretion is not all arbitrary and despotic one, to be e/ercised at the pleasure of the court, or fro! passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. $ %& parte "eco!be, %) Bo ., %-+ %& parte4radley, %) U. ". CLa , ed.D, *%., *%).& 4ut this abuse of discretion !ust be so gross as to a!ount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perfor! the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in conte!plation of la . $%8 ;. C. L., p. %*,.& That is far, ho ever, fro! being the case in the proceedings no before us. Bere, there has been no violation of the rules of practice, the petitioner had his day in court, his petition to appoint a receiver as duly heard, evidence presented by hi! as duly received and considered, and lengthy argu!ents ere !ade by counsel for both parties. The resulting order !ust, therefore, be regarded as a decision upon the !erits in accordance ith the vie s of the court belo . The respondent judge !ight have erred in his appreciation of the facts as borne out by the evidence presented, but if there be such error the sa!e cannot be controlled by mandamus. $Castro ;evilla vs.@arduo, (- <hil., )-., )-,.& The petition for a petitioner. rit of mandamus is, therefore, dis!issed, ith costs against the

Avancea' ". J.' illa(Real' A!ad #antos' Imperial' Diaz' and Laurel' JJ.' concur

2= 43=C G.R. No. L215721 "e0ember 27, 1966

A!A"OR G. CA8IRAL, petitioner?appellee, vs. !ANILA ELECTRIC CO., INC., ET AL.,respondents?appellants. #omera and )aclig for Ross' #elph and "arrascoso for respondents(appellants. petitioner(appellee.

>n Eay *%, %)(8, 3!ador @. Capiral, presented ith the CFI of Eanila a petition for Eanda!us and 5a!ages, directed against the Eanila 2lectric Co!pany and its officers, alleging that he had been illegally dis!issed and praying that the Eanila 2lectric Co!pany be ordered to reinstate hi! to his position and to pay all his salaries at <*AA.AA per !onth fro! his dis!issal until his reinstate!ent, ith legal interest+ !oral da!ages in the a!ount of <%*A,AAA.AA, plus e/e!plary da!ages hich the Court !ay dee! sufficient+ the further su! of <(,AAA.AA for attorney9s fee+ <%,AAA.AA for litigation e/penses and costs.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library The Eanila 2lectric Co!pany $Eeralco for short&, !oved to dis!iss the petition on the ground that there as a !isjoinder of parties and lac6 of cause of action and thatmandamus as not the proper re!edy. The resolution of the !otion to dis!iss as, ho ever, suspended until after the trial on the !erits.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library ;espondents interposed the follo ing separate special defenses# %& The petition states no cause of action. If entitled to any relief, petitioner has a plain, ade0uate and speedy re!edy in the ordinary course of la by the institution of an ordinary civil action.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library *& ;espondents other than respondent Eanila 2lectric Co!pany did not hire petitioner as :=e s <hotographer: either on probationary or per!anent basis.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library -& <etitioner has no cause of action of any 6ind against the officers of the respondent co!pany ho have been co?respondents in the instant special civil action of mandamus.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library .& Under the provisions of ;epublic 3ct =o. %A(*, as a!ended by ;epublic 3ct =o. %787, petitioner9s e!ploy!ent could be ter!inated for any cause hatever,... and respondent ... as given one full !onth9s salary, in accordance ith la + that petitioner9s e!ploy!ent as ter!inated by respondent co!pany because the position of :=e s <hotographer: that he as occupying as abolished. There as not enough or6 to arrant the position, and, in fact, !ost of the ti!e petitioner had no or6 to perfor!.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library

(& >n =ove!ber *), %)(7, petitioner as advised by respondent Fan Boven that the position of :=e s <hotographer: ould be abolished for the reasons hereinabove stated, and suggested to petitioner to loo6 for or6 else here.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library ,& <etitioner9s e!ploy!ent as not ter!inated due to any Union activities on his part. In fact at one ti!e the Eeralco 1or6ers9 Union thought that the ter!ination of petitioner9s e!ploy!ent as due to union activities and !ade efforts to have petitioner reinstated, but after investigating the facts, the said Union !ade no further re0uest to the respondent co!pany for the reinstate!ent of petitioner. Counterclai!s of various a!ounts totalling <8AA,AAA.AA ere also as6ed by respondents clai!ing that the institution of the instant petition as in bad faith, destined to harass and ve/ the officers of the Eeralco and for hich !oral da!ages have been sustained by the!. 4y ay of attorney9s fees, the su! of <*A,AAA,AA as also as6ed by respondents.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library >n Earch ,, %)(7, Capiral as e/tended by the Eeralco, in its <ublic ;elations >ffice, a probationary appoint!ent to the position of :ne s photographer:, hich appoint!ent as converted into a regular and per!anent appoint!ent to the sa!e position, on 3ugust 7, %)(7, ith a !onthly co!pensation of <*AA.AA. >n Earch (, %)(8, Capiral beca!e a !e!ber of the Eeralco 1or6ers9 Union, hich had an e/isting collector bargaining agree!ent ith the Eeralco, in hich the status of :te!porary:, :probationary:, and :regular: or so called :per!anent: e!ployees and their rights and privileges ere defined. >n Earch -%, %)(8, Capiral9s services ere ter!inated by the Eeralco, giving hi! one !onth full pay, in lieu of ritten notice.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library Capiral clai!s that he as dis!issed because he joined the Union+ that the position of :ne s photographer: as not abolished as stated by the Eeralco, for on Earch %7, %)(8, before Capiral as given his separation papers, one 3!ado 1ycoco as hired by the Eeralco and Fan Boven, Capiral9s i!!ediate Chief, instructed hi! $Capiral&, to ac0uaint 1ycoco ith the !echanics of his or6, infor!ing hi! $Capiral& that he ill be appointed as :@eneral Contact !an:+ that having been appointed as :regular and per!anent: e!ployee, he could not be dis!issed e/cept for cause, in the absence of hich ould entitle hi! to continue or6ing until the age of retire!ent $,A& years andJor at least after serving for thirty $-A& years.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library Upon the other hand, Eeralco !aintains that the dis!issal of Capiral as due to the abolition of his position for reasons of econo!y and not for his affiliation ith the Union+ that the created position for hich he as appointed, as !erely e/peri!ental+ that 1ycoco as hired as a :journalist:+ that although a regular and per!anent appoint!ent as e/tended to Capiral, this does not !ean that he could not be dis!issed at all.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library

3fter trial, the lo er court rendered judg!ent, the pertinent portions of read ?

hich

*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- according to $r. /.). Re+es' and the "ourt finds no reason to accept his testimon+' the management came to 0no, that Amador ,as a mem!er of the union after' not !efore the discharge+ ... + it has yet to be deter!ined if this case here dis!issal had been validly !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 permanent and regular emplo+ee' carried ,ith it the implication of clear permanence ,ith the result that the occupant could not !e e2ected 2ust li0e that' !+ calling for him e&temporaneousl+ and telling him that he ,as dismissed on the ground of a!olition of his 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 in contradistinction ,ith them' those ,ho are regular and permanent emplo+ees could notso that as a corollar+' the latter categor+ of emplo+ees could remain until the age of retirement and could !e dismissed !efore that' onl+ for 2ust cause + ....chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library I= FI21 1B2;2>F, the Court desists fro! issuing the pere!ptory rit ofmandamus but orders reinstate!ent of plaintiff to his position, and conde!ns Eanila 2lectric Co. to pay unto hi! his bac6 salary at <*AA.AA a !onth fro! %)(8 up to final reinstate!ent, deducting the salary fro! 'uly to 5ece!ber, %)(8 hen plaintiff as e!ployed by 4ayne 3djust!ent Co.+ the Court also conde!ns Eanila 2lectric Co. to pay hi! the su! of <(AA.AA attorney9s fees, and the costs. The above judg!ent as brought directly to this Court, on both factual and legal issues, the a!ount of the clai! of respondents herein $by ay of counterclai! and attorney9s fees& far e/ceeding <*AA,AAA.AA. ;espondents?appellants clai! that the trial court erred ? %& In refusing to apply to the principal issue the relevant provisions of ;ep. 3ct =o. %A(* as a!ended by ;ep. 3ct =o. %787 as ell as the pertinent decisions of this Bonorable Court+chanrobles virtual la library *& In not holding that appellant co!pany9s ter!ination of appellee9s e!ploy!ent la ful because it as for cause+chanrobles virtual la library as

-& In ordering appellee9s reinstate!ent ith bac6pay, and finding appellant co!pany liable for attorney9s fees and costs+chanrobles virtual la library .& In not holding appellee liable on appellant9s counterclai!+ andchanrobles virtual la library

(& In not dis!issing the petition for mandamus. The case at bar rests on the interpretation and application of the follo ing legal provisions, to it ? "2CTI>= %. In cases of e!ploy!ent, ithout a definite <eriod, in a co!!ercial, industrial, or agricultural establish!ent or enterprise, the e!ployer or the e!ployee !ay ter!inate at any ti!e the e!ploy!ent ith just cause+ or ithout just cause in the case of an e!ployee by serving ritten notice on the e!ployer at least one !onth in advance, or in the case of an e!ployer, by serving such notice to the e!ployee at least one !onth in advance or one?half !onth for every year of service of the e!ployee, hichever is longer, a fraction of at least si/ !onths being considered as one hole year.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library The e!ployer, upon ho! no such notice as served in case of ter!ination of e!ploy!ent ithout just cause !ay hold the e!ployee liable for da!ages.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library The e!ployee, upon ho! no such notice as served in case of ter!ination of e!ploy!ent ithout just cause shall be entitled to co!pensation fro! the date of the ter!ination of his e!ploy!ent in an a!ount e0uivalent to his salaries or ages corresponding to the re0uired period of notice.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library The follo ing are just causes for ter!inating an e!ploy!ent period#chanrobles virtual la library %. 4y the e!ployer ? a. The closing or cessation of operation of the establish!ent or enterprise, unless the closing is for the purposes of defeating the intention of this la + b. >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 is ith or ithout a definite period. Capiral !aintains that upon the e/tension to hi! of a regular and per!anent e!ploy!ent, his e!ploy!ent ith the Eeralco beca!e so i!pressed ith definiteness that he should stop or6ing only after he shall have reached the age of retire!ent or co!pleted -A years service ith the co!pany. Eeralco holds the contrary vie , contending that Capiral9s regular or per!anent appoint!ent did not in any ay !a6e his e!ploy!ent ith a definite period, such regular appoint!ent having been e/tended only to afford "apiral ,ith fringe !enefits due to per!anent or regular e!ployees, and not to !a6e his tenure of office ith a definite period.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library ithout a definite

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 heretofore reproduced and the action ta6en by the Union, as per trial court9s finding. =o appeal as ever ta6en by appellee against the decision on this issue. 3ppellants, in e/plaining hy the position of :ne s photographer as abolished, proved that it as !ore econo!ical to engage the services of an outside photographic advertiser, than having a regular :ne s photographer:. The trial court recognized this fact hen it said# :and it as found out in due ti!e that Eeralco ould spend less by dispensing ith the services of a regular ne s photographic advertiser+ and here there is one proof that dis!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 herein as justified, under the la heretofore 0uoted. 2ven in the supposition that appellee9s dis!issal as ithout cause at all, still the appellants could ter!inate his services because his e!ploy!ent as not for a definite period. <eriod is length of e/istence+ duration. 3 point of ti!e !ar6ing a ter!ination as of a cause or an activity+ an end, a li!it, a bound+ conclusion+ ter!ination. 3 series of years, !onths or days in hich so!ething is co!pleted. 3 ti!e of definite length, 5efinite, having distinct or certain li!its+ deter!inate in e/tent or character+ li!ited+ fi/ed ? as definite period. $1ebster9s International 5ictionary&. In other ords, a definite period li!its the period fro! one fi/ed date to another fi/ed date, hich is not the case in the present action.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library This Court, e/pounding on the right of an e!ployer to ter!inate the services of its e!ployees, ith ho! no agree!ent e/isted, fi/ing or specifying a definite period of e!ploy!ent, said ? ... It is high ti!e in !y opinion that all doubts on this point be cleared and that the relation bet een e!ployer and e!ployee and the rights and obligations of each be clearly ascertained and defined. 1hatever the courts, including this Tribunal !ay, in the past have said about the validity or i!propriety of dis!issals of e!ployees by their e!ployers, the la, or rule is and has al,a+s !een that in the a!sence of a contract of emplo+ment for a specific period' 2ust as an emplo+ee in a commercial or industrial esta!lishment ma+ 5uit at an+ time' singl+ or collectivel+' ,ith or ,ithout cause' so the emplo+er can dismiss an+ emplo+ee at an+ time and ,ithout cause. *his right of the emplo+er is commonl+ referred to as right to hire and fire his emplo+ees in the same ,a+ that the emplo+ee can stop ,or0ing !+ himself or go on stri0e ,ith his fello, emplo+ees.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library *his right of the emplo+er' in the a!sence of a contract fi/ing a period of e!ploy!ent, to dis!iss its e!ployees has al ays been recognized in his jurisdiction. 3rt -A* of the Code of Co!!erce provides that here the contract does not have a fi/ed period, any one of the parties $e!ployer and e!ployee&!ay ter!inate it upon giving one !onth advance notice, thereof to the other. Under this codal provision the courts, including the Court of Industrial ;elations had been a arding a !onth9s pay or !esada not only to co!!ercial e!ployees as conte!plated by the Code of Co!!erce but even to industrial e!ployees or laborers. *his means that in the a!sence of a contract fi&ing the

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 notice in advance- in the a!sence of such notice the emplo+ee laid off or dismissed is entitled to one month pa+.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library This tradition right of the e!ployer to dis!iss his e!ployee ithout cause is properly recognized, !ay, ta6en for granted in the ne la $;epublic 3ct =o. %A(*& entitled :3= 3CT T> <;>FI52 F>; TB2 E3==2; >F T2;EI=3TI=@ 2E<L>KE2=T 1ITB>UT 3 52FI=IT2 <2;I>5 I= C>EE2;CI3L, I=5U"T;I3L, >; 3@;ICULTU;3L 2"T34LI"BE2=T >; 2=T2;<;I"2.:chanrobles virtual la library 1e !ay not say as does Er. 'ustice <ablo in his opinion, concurring in that of the !ajority that ;epublic 3ct =o. %A(* is a reactionary legislation because in his opinion said act destroys the con0uests of labor, one of hich as stability of his e!ploy!ent, hich the Chief 'ustice calls the security of e!ploy!ent. As alread+ demonstrated' there has never !een such sta!ilit+ or securit+ of emplo+ment e&cept ,hen provided for in statutor+ provision' li0e those acts I shall later enumerate. Repu!lic Act 3671 could not have destro+ed ,hat had never e&isted. All it did ,as' as alread+ stated' to recognize the insta!ilit+ and insecurit+ of emplo+ment' and to e&tend partial protection of the la!orer against the same . $2!phasis supplied+ reiterated in 2rnesto ;obles v. Fisayan Transportation Co!pany, @.;. =o. L?%A,*A, Eay %(, %)()+ Eanuel Tanguilig and "ilveria Calica Tanguilig v. Theo B. 5avis and Co., Far 2ast Ltd., @.;. =o. L?)%.., Eay -A, %)()+ Candido 4autista v. <hilippine "tea!ship =avigation Co., @.;. =o. L? %*,%*, 5ece!ber *), %)()& $@utierrez v. 4achrach, L?=os. %%*)8, %%(8,, %%,A-, 'an. %), %)().& It is orthy of note that the above principles find invigoration in 3ct =o. %787, a!ending 3ct =o. %A(*, referred to in the above case.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library 1ith the conclusion reached, 1e dee! it unnecessary and of no practical value, to further discuss the other issues raised in the appeal.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virtual la library 1B2;2F>;2, finding that the decision appealed fro! insofar as it finds the appellants liable for bac6 salaries, ordering the Eeralco to reinstate herein appellee to his abolished position, and a arding hi! attorney9s fees, contrary to the facts, the la and jurisprudence on the !atter, the sa!e should be as it is hereby reversed, and another entered absolving therefro! appellants ho had not sho n that they ere entitled to their counterclai!s. =o costs in both instances.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles virt

EN BANC G.R. No. L25242 !/) 29, 1956 GERONI!O "E LOS RE7ES, <etitioner?3ppellee, vs. ARTE!IO ELE8AO, -( +-. 0/p/0-t) /. $%.t-0e o* t+e 8e/0e o* t+e !%(-0-p/5-t) o* C/5/%/(, 8ro9-(0e o* L/'%(/ /(& !ARIA B. CASTRO, respondents?appellants. Rosendo J. )ausa and Ampil for appellee. *ansinsin for appellants.

This is an appeal fro! a decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna granting the petition for a rit of mandamus filed by petitioner directing respondent justice of the peace to give due course to the appeal interposed by petitioner in civil case =o. - of the 'ustice of the <eace Court of Calauan Laguna, entitled $aria ). "astro vs. 8eronimo de los Re+es, for unla ful detainer, and to elevate the record of the case to said court of first instance for the purposes of the appeal, ithout pronounce!ent as to costs.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library Earia 4. Castro filed an action for unla ful detainer in the justice of the <eace Court of Calauan, Laguna against @eroni!o de los ;eyes to recover the possession of t o parcels of land situated in said !unicipality and the rentals due thereon $Civil Case =o. -&. >n >ctober %*, %).), the court rendered judg!ent ordering @eroni!o de los ;eyes to vacate the property in litigation, to pay to Earia 4. Castro the su! of <7,*AA a year fro! 3ugust -%, %).(, plus the su! of <%,AAA as attorney9s fees, and the costs of action. >n >ctober *7, %). ), de los ;eyes filed a !otion for reconsideration, hich as denied on =ove!ber %A, and copy of the order of denial as received by hi! on =ove!ber %(. >n =ove!ber %,, de los ;eyes instituted an action for certiorari before the "upre!e Court against the 'ustice of the <eace of Calauan ith a prayer for the issuance of a rit of preli!inary injunction to suspend the period of appeal and prohibit said justice of the peace fro! carrying out the e/ecution of the judg!ent and fro! ta6ing any further action in the case until further orders fro! the "upre!e Court. >n =ove!ber **, the "upre!e Court issued a resolution granting the rit of preli!inary injunction prayed for upon the filing by de los ;eyes of a bond in the a!ount of <%A,AAA. This bond having been filed, the Cler6 of Court issued the rit on =ove!ber *., %).).chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library >n >ctober %-, %)(A, the "upre!e Court denied the petition for certiorari holding that the re!edy of petitioner as to appeal the case to the Court of First Instance. >n the sa!e date, de los ;eyes filed a !otion for reconsideration hich as denied. >n =ove!ber %,, the second !otion for reconsideration of de los ;eyes as also denied, and on the sa!e date de los ;eyes gave notice of his intention to appeal fro! the decision of the 'ustice of the <eace Court of Calauan in civil case =o. -, depositing at the sa!e ti!e ith said court the re0uired doc6et fees and cash appeal bond. >n case a !otion for the i!!ediate e/ecution of the judg!ent on the ground that the sa!e has already beco!e final. 3fter due hearing, and after the parties had sub!itted their

retroactive !e!oranda, the 'ustice of the <eace Court ruled that, the appeal having been filed out of ti!e, the judg!ent had beco!e final and e/ecutory. It, therefore, disallo ed the appeal and granted the !otion for i!!ediate e/ecution. 5e los ;eyes filed a !otion for reconsideration but this as denied.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library 5issatisfied ith the action ta6en by the justice of the peace, on 'anuary *(, %)(%, 5e los ;eyes filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna a petition for mandamus against Earia 4. Castro and the justice of the peace, praying that an order be issued directing the justice of the peace too give due course to his appeal and to elevate the record of the detainer case so that action on the petition !ay be ta6en, praying at the sa!e ti!e that a rit of preli!inary injunction be issued ordering hi! to desist fro! e/ecuting the judg!ent, or fro! carrying out the rit of e/ecution that !ay have been issued therein. >n 'anuary *,, %)(%, the court re0uired Earia 4 Castro to ans er the petition, but instead of filing an ans er, she filed a !otion to dis!iss, contending that the petition does not state a cause of action for the reason that the judg!ent of the justice of the peace had long beco!e final and e/ecutory. >n Earch -A, %)(%, the court denied the !otion to dis!iss directing Earia 4. Castro to ans er the petition ithin %A days fro! notice. The court, in the sa!e order, granted the petition for preli!inary injunction upon 5e los ;eyes9 filing a bond in the a!ount of <%A,AAA. 3fter the parties had sub!itted their respective !e!oranda, the court, on 3ugust -%, %)(%, rendered decision on the !erits herein it upheld the petition for mandamus ordering the justice of the peace to give course to the appeal under the ter!s set forth in the early part of this decision. Fro! the decision above adverted to, respondent interposed the present appeal.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library The !ain issue to be deter!ined is hether the judg!ent rendered by the justice of the <eace Court of Calauan in the detainer case had already beco!e final and e/ecutory in vie of the alleged failure of @eroni!o de los ;eyes to perfect his appeal ithin the regle!entary period. In the affir!ative case, the lo er court erred in granting the petition for mandamus+ other ise the decision appealed fro! should be affir!ed and the appeal of 5e los ;eyes should be given due course.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library It appears that respondent justice of the peace rendered his decision on >ctober %*, %).), copy of hich 5e los ;eyes received on >ctober %(, %).)+ that on >ctober *7, %).), or %* days after he received copy of said decision, appellant filed a !otion for reconsideration hich as denied on =ove!ber %A, %).)+ that on =ove!ber %(, %).), appellant received copy of the resolution of the court denying said !otion+ that on =ove!ber %,, %).), or on the thirteenth day fro! the receipt of the decision, appellant filed ith the "upre!e Court a petition for certiorari ith preli!inary injunction herein he prayed that the period to appeal be suspended+ that on =ove!ber **, %).), the "upre!e Court granted his petition for a rit of preli!inary injunction, and on =ove!ber *., %).), the Cler6 of Court issued the rit as directed+ that on >ctober %-, %)(A, the petition for certiorari as denied by the "upre!e Court+ that appellant9s first !otion for reconsideration as filed in due ti!e hich as denied, and his second !otion for

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 of appeal ith the justice of the peace court depositing at the sa!e ti!e the re0uired doc6et 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!e final.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library 3ppellants no contends that, upon the foregoing facts, the appeal he has interposed as 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 certiorari case he filed his 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 filing of said petition for certiorari has had the effect of interrupting the running of the period to appeal. In this connection, it should be recalled that hen the petition for certiorari as filed 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 certiorari case as pending before said court beco!e suspended or interrupted, it ould see! clear that the notice of appeal as filed in due ti!e or ithin the fifteen?day period provided by the ;ules of Court.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library ;espondents, on the other hand, sustain the vie that the notice of appeal filed by appellant as out of ti!e for the reason that it as filed !ore than one year after the decision of the justice of the peace had been rendered, and the fact that on the thirteenth day fro! receipt by hi! of the copy of the decision he filed ith the "upre!e Court 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 for reconsideration. ;espondents further contend that, even if it be considered that the rit of the preli!inary injunction issued by the "upre!e Court could have the effect of suspending the period to appeal, such suspension ould be of no avail to appellant for the reason that, hen such rit as issued, the period of t enty?one days fro! the receipt 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 of ti!e..chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library 1e do not subscribe to this vie . It should be noted that the petition for certiorari filed by appellant ith this court ith the purpose of obtaining the revocation of the decision of the justice of the peace, as coupled ith a petition for preli!inary injunction hich includes not only a directive enjoining the justice of the peace fro! ta6ing any further step or action in the case, but also a directive to suspend the period for the running of the period to appeal. 1e should note here that the rit of preli!inary injunction as granted by the court as pra+ed for in the petition, hich includes not only the suspension 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 the very nature of a rit of preli!inary injunction, one cannot but conclude that its legal

effects are not only to enjoin the justice of the peace fro! issuing the rit of e/ecution of the judg!ent rendered by hi! but also fro! ta6ing any action on the petition to appeal.chanroblesvirtuala librarychanrobles 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 to appeal, but hile this !ay be true, it cannot be denied that this result co!es ell ithin the purvie of the directive, for it stands to reason that hen the 'ustice of the <eace is enjoined to desist fro! further proceeding in the case, it !eans that he cannot also act on any !ove to appeal fro! the case.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library 3n injunction, by its very nature, has the effect of staying the hand of the court. The petition for certiorari having been filed before the e/piration of the regle!entary period, the granting of the rit of preli!inary injunction, even beyond that period, should be given a retroactive effect if it is to subserve the purpose for hich an injunction is granted. For, as it has been aptly held, the :purpose of preli!inary injunction is to preserve status 5uo until parties9 rights can be fairly and fully investigated and deter!ined by strictly legal proofs according to principles of e0uity: C"inclair ;efining Co!pany vs. Eidland >il Co!pany, (( F. $*d& .*D. It is a provisional re!edy to hich :parties litigant !ay resort for the preservation of their rights and interests, and for no other purpose, during the pendency of the principal action: CCalo vs. ;oldan, : .* >ff. @az., $=o. %*&, pp. -%7., -%7)D. 3nd under our o n rules, the purpose of preli!inary injunction is :the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such $judicial& proceedings: $section 7, ;ule ,7&.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library 1e are therefore of the opinion that, under the circu!stances of this case, the notice of appeal of appellant as filed in due ti!e and that the decision of the justice of the peace had not yet beco!e final and e/ecutory.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library 1herefore, the decision appealed fro! ill be affir!ed, ith costs against respondent Earia 4. Castro.chanroblesvirtuala library chanrobles virtual la library

;epublic SU8RE!E Eanila FI;"T 5IFI"I>= G.R. No. 166344

of

the

<hilippines COURT

$%5) 23, 2336 AUT ORIT7, petitioner,

8 ILI88INE COCONUT vs. 8RI!E; COCO 8RO"UCTS, INC., respondent. 52CI"I>= CALLE$O, SR., J.<

This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the 5ecision% of the Court of 3ppeals $C3& dated >ctober ), *AA* in C3?@.;. "< =o. ,A%*), and ;esolution dated Earch %), *AA. denying the !otion for reconsideration of the said decision. T+e A(te0e&e(t. >n 3ugust *8, %)8*, 2/ecutive >rder $2.>.& =o. 8*, <hilippines. "ection % thereof reads# as issued by the <resident of the

"ection %. <rohibition. 2/cept as herein provided, no govern!ent agency or instru!entality shall hereafter authorize, approve, or grant any per!it or license for the establish!ent or operations of ne desiccated coconut processing plants, including the i!portation of !achinery or e0uip!ent for the purpose. In the event of a need to esta!lish a ne, plant , or e/pand the capacity, relocate or upgrade the efficiencies of any e/isting desiccated plant, the Philippine "oconut Authorit+ !ay, upon proper deter!ination of such need and evaluation of the condition relating to# a. the e/isting !ar6et de!and+ b. the production capacity prevailing in the country or locality+ c. the level and flo of ra !aterials+ and hich !ay affect the gro th or viability of the

d. other circu!stances industry concerned.

!ay authorize or grant the application for the establish!ent or e/pansion of capacity, relocation or upgrading of efficiencies of such desiccated coconut processing plant, subject to the approval of the <resident. * $2!phasis supplied&

>n >ctober *8, %)87, the <hilippine Coconut 3uthority $<C3& adopted ;esolution =o. A(8?87 authorizing the establish!ent and operation of additional <C3 plants in vie of the increasing de!and for desiccated coconuts $5C=& in the orld !ar6et. The opening of ne plants as !ade subject to i!ple!enting guidelines and approval of the <resident. <ri!e/ Coco <roducts, Inc. $<ri!e/, for brevity& is a do!estic corporation engaged in the !anufacture of desiccated coconut. >n "epte!ber *(, %))A, it filed an application for registration ith the <C3 as a ne e/porterJtraderJ!anufacturer of 5C= and paid the su! of <,AA.AA as registration fee. Bo ever, <C3 did not i!!ediately issue the corresponding certificate of registration. This pro!pted <ri!e/ to file a petition for !anda!us against the <C3 and its then 3d!inistrator Charles 3vila before the ;egional Trial Court $;TC& of Lucena City, 4ranch (). The case as doc6eted as Civil Case =o. )%?-). >n 3ugust -%, %))*, the court rendered judg!ent in favor of <ri!e/ and ordered the <C3 to act on the application. Conse0uently, the <C3 @overning 4oard held a !eeting on >ctober *A, %))* during hich it adopted ;esolution =o. A..?)* approving the application for registration of <ri!e/ subject to its co!pliance ith the necessary re0uire!ents and pertinent regulations of the <C3 and the final approval of the <resident of the <hilippines. The ;esolution reads# ;2">LF25, that upon reco!!endation of Eanage!ent, the grant of per!it to <;IE2L C>C> <;>5UCT", I=C. to operate a desiccated coconut processing plant in 4arrio Eangilag, Candelaria, Quezon, pursuant to 4oard ;esolution =o. A(8?87 and <residential Ee!orandu! dated February %%, %)88, and under e/isting 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA*, "eries of %))%, be and is hereby authorized and approved, subject to co!pliance ith the necessary re0uire!ent and pertinent regulations of the 3uthority. ;2">LF25 FI=3LLK, that the opening of the ne desiccated coconut processing of <;IE2L C>C> <;>5UCT", I=C. shall be subject to the final approval of the <resident of the <hilippines as provided under <C3 4oard ;es. =o. A(8?87.Bo ever, on =ove!ber (, %))*, seven $7& <C3 processing co!panies belonging to the 3ssociation of <hilippine Coconut 5esiccators $3<C5& filed ith the ;TC a petition for prohibition ith a plea for injunctive relief to enjoin the <C3 fro! processing and issuing a license to <ri!e/. >n =ove!ber *(, %))*, the court issued a rit of preli!inary injunction against the <C3. The latter co!plied and refrained fro! processing and issuing a license to <ri!e/.. >n Earch *., %))-, the <C3 @overning 4oard issued ;esolution =o. A%8?)- entitled :<olicy 5eclaration 5eregulating the 2stablish!ent of =e Coconut <rocessing <lants.: It is provided therein that, henceforth, <C3 shall no longer re0uire any coconut oil !ill, coconut oil refinery, coconut desiccator, coconut product processorJfactory, coconut

fiber plant or any si!ilar coconut processing plant to apply ith <C3 and the latter shall no longer issue any for! of license or per!it as a condition prior to establish!ent or operation of such !ills or plants. It stated further that <C3 shall li!it itself only to si!ply registering the afore!entioned coconut product processors for the purpose of !onitoring their volu!es of production, ad!inistration of 0uality standards ith the corresponding service feesJcharges.( >n Earch *(, %))-, the <C3 issued Certificate of ;egistration =o. A%.*(. to <ri!e/. In the !eanti!e, the 3<C5 filed a petition for certiorari and !anda!us against the <C3 in this Court to nullify ;esolution =o. A%8?)on the follo ing grounds# I ;2"<>=52=T <C39" 4>3;5 ;2">LUTI>= =>. A%8?)- I" =ULL 3=5 F>I5 F>; 42I=@ 3= U=5U2 2L2;CI"2 >F L2@I"L3TIF2 <>12; 4K 3= 35EI=I"T;3TIF2 4>5K. II 3"I52 F;>E 42I=@ ULT;3?FI;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= FI>L3TI>= >F "U4"T3=TIF2 5U2 <;>C2"" >F L31. III I= <3""I=@ 4>3;5 ;2">LUTI>= =>. A%8?)-, ;2"<>=52=T <C3 FI>L3T25 TB2 <;>C25U;3L 5U2 <;>C2"" ;2QUI;2E2=T >F C>="ULT3TI>= <;>FI525 I= <;2"I52=TI3L 52C;22 =>. %,.., 2L2CUTIF2 >;52; =>. 8*, 3=5 <C3 35EI=I"T;3TIF2 >;52; =>. AA*, "2;I2" >F %))%., The case as doc6eted as @.;. =o. %%A(*,. 1hile the case as pending in this court, the <C3 rene ed the registration of <ri!e/ as a coconut product processor every year fro! %)). until %))8. >n February %A, %))8, the Court rendered a decision in @.;. =o. %%A(*, declaring <C3 4oard ;esolution =o. A%8?)- and all certificates of registration issued under it null and void for having been issued in e/cess of the po er of <C3. The fallo of the decision reads# 1B2;2F>;2, the petition is @;3=T25. <C3 ;esolution =o. A%8?)- and all certificates of registration issued under it are hereby declared =ULL and F>I5 for having been issued in e/cess of the po er of the <hilippine Coconut 3uthority to adopt or issue. "> >;52;25.7

The Court ruled that, by approving ;esolution =o. A%8?)-, the <C3 :allo CedD not only the indiscri!inate opening of ne coconut processing plants but the virtual dis!antling of the regulatory infrastructure hereby, forsa6ing controls theretofore placed in its 6eeping, the <C3 li!itCedD its function to the innocuous one of 9!onitoring9 co!pliance by coconut !illers ith 0uality standards and volu!es of production. In effect, the <C3 ould si!ply be co!piling statistical data on these !atters, but in case of violations of standards there ould be nothing !uch it ould do. The field ould be left ithout an u!pire ho ould retire to the bleachers to beco!e a !ere spectator.: 8 The Court ruled that the <C3 cannot renounce its po er to regulate that hich has been set up by the very la creating it. 1ith the nullification of all certificates of registration issued by the <C3, the latter as thus i!pelled to call for consultations ith the 3<C5 and all the parties affected by the decision, including <ri!e/. The <C3 re0uired the! to sub!it their respective position papers on ho to i!ple!ent the Court9s decision. >n =ove!ber *-, %))8, <ri!e/ sub!itted its <osition <aper. >n 'anuary %8, %))), the <C3 issued Ee!orandu! Circular =o. A%, "eries of %))), providing guidelines for the issuance of provisional licenses for the registration of 0ualified 5C= e/portersJtradersJ!anufacturers. Confor!ably, the <C3 issued on 'anuary *7, %))), <rovisional Certificate of ;egistration =o. A.A8A(?))?< to <ri!e/ effective until 'une -A, %))) only. >n February 8, %))), <ri!e/ !oved for reconsideration. It !aintained that it as entitled to a certificate of registration for one year considering that it had been operating as an e/porterJtraderJ!anufacturer of 5C= since "epte!ber *8, %))A. ) It in0uired fro! the <C3 $%& hether the Ee!orandu! Circular =o. A%, "eries of %))) and the issuance of a provisional certificate of registration in its favor are to be ta6en as a resolution by the <C3 of the issues regarding the i!ple!entation of the 5ecision in @.;. =o. %%A(*,, and $*& hether <ri!e/ falls under paragraph $a& of the said !e!orandu! circular in hich it ould be entitled to rene the certificate of registration valid for the calendar year %))). >n February %(, %))), the <C3 rote <ri!e/ and infor!ed the latter that Ee!orandu! Circular =o. A%, "eries of %))) and the issuance of provisional certificate of registration in its favor are e0uitable interi! !easures to enable the parties affected by the "upre!e Court 5ecision to co!ply ith subsisting <C3 rules and regulations governing the establish!ent and operation of 5C= plants, and that said !easures ere adopted after the consultation !eetings conducted by <C3 ith the desiccators and after the sub!ission of their position papers. >n its second 0uery, the <C3 replied that the records of its registration office do not sho that <ri!e/ has been issued any valid certificate of registration for %))A, nor any rene al thereof despite the alleged official receipt purportedly representing the registration fee. <ri!e/ as issued a certificate of registration only on Earch *(, %))- or after the pro!ulgation of the nullified <C3 ;esolution =o. A%8?)-. The <C3 re0uested <ri!e/ to furnish it ith authenticated copies of the certificate of registration for year %))A and the purported rene als thereof as !entioned in its letter for reconsideration.%A

>n Earch %(, %))), <ri!e/ rote the <C3 insisting that Certificate of ;egistration =o. A%.*(. as not issued to it by virtue ;esolution =o. A%8?)-, hich as nullified by the "upre!e Court, but by virtue of the ;TC decision in Civil Case =o. )%?-) and <C3 ;esolution =o. A..?)*.%% >n 'une %(, %))), <ri!e/ as pro!pted to file a petition for !anda!us against the <C3 and its 3d!inistrator 2duardo 2scueta before the ;TC of Quezon City. <ri!e/ alleged, inter alia, that it has established beyond doubt that there as a final and e/ecutory decision issued by the ;TC of Lucena City, 4ranch ,) ordering the <C3 to ta6e action on its application for registration dated "epte!ber *(, %))A, and that the said application has been approved by the <C3 @overning 4oard on >ctober *A, %))*, per ;esolution =o. A..?)*. There is also no doubt that the certificate of registration as issued not by virtue of ;esolution =o. A%8?)- hich as declared null and void by the "upre!e Court but by virtue of ;esolution =o. A..?)*. <C3 had absolutely no reason to issue only a provisional certificate of registration valid only for si/ $,& !onths or until 'une -A, %))), since it $<ri!e/& has been operating as 5C= since "epte!ber *8, %))A. 3s a result of the issuance of only a provisional certificate of registration, it ould suffer da!ages in its do!estic and e/port business of at least <( !illion per !onth starting 'uly %, %))).%* <ri!e/ prayed that <C3 be ordered to issue a rene al registration certificate valid for calendar +ear 3... under "ection -, paragraph $a& of Ee!orandu! Circular =o. A%, "eries of %))), and +earl+ thereafter+ and, in the event of failure to issue rene al certificate for calendar year %))) not later than 'une -A, %))), that <C3 be ordered to pay at least <( !illion per !onth for da!ages to be sustained by it, <(AA,AAA.AA as attorney9s fees, <-,AAA.AA by ay of litigation e/penses, plus cost of suit. %Eean hile, the <C3 issued an >rder dated 'une %8, %))), granting the re0uests for reconsideration of concerned desiccated coconut plants and !anufacturers including <ri!e/. 3cting on the re0uests for reconsideration by concerned desiccated coconut plants and !anufacturers hose provisional registrations issued pursuant to Ee!orandu! Circular =o. A%, "eries of %))) $Interi! @uidelines for the ;ene al of ;egistration Certificates for Kear %)))& ill e/pire on 'une -A, %))), the said provisional registrations of the concerned 5C= plants are hereby e/tended for another si/ $,& !onths, counted fro! 'une -A, %))). 2/cept for the above e/tension period, the re0uire!ents for registration in accordance ith the interi! @uidelines shall re!ain in full force and effect and should, therefore, be co!plied ith ithin the e/tended si/ $,& !onth period ending 5ece!ber -%, %))). The concerned 5C= plants affected by this >rder, including oil !ills and other processors hich ere given provisional registrations !ay, therefore, file their

corresponding application for rene al of ;egistration Certificates days fro! receipt hereof.

ithin five $(&

For 5C= plants, they shall further sub!it a s orn state!ent of the responsible officer of the said 5C= plants on the status of their co!pliance ith the provisions of the Interi! @uidelines, <C3 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA*, "eries of %))% on @uided 5eregulation, and such other issuances of the <C3 pursuant thereto. "o >rdered.%. In its 3ns er to the petition, the <C3 clai!ed that it had already acted on the !otion for reconsideration of <ri!e/ on 'une %8, %))) and e/tended its provisional registration for another si/ !onths fro! 'une -A, %))). It averred that the action of <ri!e/ as preventive because it insisted that <C3 be ordered to rene its registration annually.%( The <C3 !aintained that <ri!e/ is not entitled to a certificate of registration as a !atter of right every year under "ection % of 2.>. =o. 8*,. %, >n 'anuary %8, *AAA, the ;TC rendered a 5ecision in favor of the petitioner and ordered the <C3 to issue to <ri!e/ a regular certificate of registration not only for the calendar year %))) but also annually thereafter upon its co!pliance ith all the legal re0uire!ents for registration. The fallo of the decision reads# 1B2;2F>;2, this Court resolves to give 5U2 C>U;"2 to the petition and to @;3=T the sa!e. ;espondents <hilippine Coconut 3uthority and its 3d!inistrator, 2duardo U. 2scueta, are hereby ordered to issue to petitioner <ri!e/ Coco <roducts, Inc. a regular certificate of registration valid for the calendar +ear 3...' rene,a!le +earl+ thereafter upon petitioner9s co!pliance ith all the legal re0uire!ents for registration. <etitioner9s clai!s for da!ages and attorney9s fees are hereby denied. ;espondents9 counterclai! for attorney9s fees is, li6e ise, hereby denied for lac6 of !erit. "> >;52;25.%7 $2!phasis supplied& The court a 5uo ratiocinated that the <C3 !ay be co!pelled by !anda!us to rene the certificate of registration of <ri!e/ valid for one year. The trial court declared that hile it is true that <ri!e/ is not entitled to a certificate of registration as a !atter of right, the <C3 is !andated by la , specifically 2.>. =o. 8*,, to deter!ine if there is a need for a ne desiccated coconut plant and evaluate the circu!stances prevailing in the locality. The fact that the grant of a per!it to <ri!e/ as authorized and approved by the <C3 @overning 4oard on >ctober *A, %))* per ;esolution =o. A..?)* is a clear indication that the <C3 has already !ade such a deter!ination so that the subse0uent

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

hich,

<C3 appealed the decision to the Court of 3ppeals $C3&. The C3 rendered a decision dis!issing the appeal and affir!ing the ;TC decision. %) The C3 affir!ed the ruling of the court a 5uo that <ri!e/ as able to establish its legal right to a per!it as e/porterJtraderJ!anufacturer of desiccated coconut by virtue of <C3 ;esolution =o. A..?)*. The appellate court ruled that the <C3 cannot invo6e its failure to !a6e the necessary reco!!endation to the <resident under "ection %, 2.>. =o. 8*, as a legal justification for the non?issuance of a license to <ri!e/. It agreed ith the ;TC that the fact that <ri!e/ had been issued certificates of registration for %))- up to %))8 presupposes that the re0uired approval of the <resident had been obtained. The appellate court pointed out that hat as declared null and void by the Court in Association of Philippine "oconut Desiccators v. Philippine "oconut Authorit+ *A as <C3 ;esolution =o. A%8?)-.*% <C3 filed a !otion for reconsideration of the said decision but the appellate court denied the !otion for lac6 of !erit on Earch %), *AA.. ** 5issatisfied, <C3, no petitioner, elevated the case to this Court, through a petition for revie on certiorari against <ri!e/ ith a sole assign!ent of error# TB2 C>U;T 3 QU> @;3F2LK 2;;25 I= 5I"EI""I=@ TB2 3<<23L 3=5 I= FI=5I=@ TB3T TB2 3CT >F TB2 <2TITI>=2; T> I""U2 3 C2;TIFIC3T2 >F ;2@I"T;3TI>= I= F3F>; >F ;2"<>=52=T B2;2I= E3K 42 C>E<2LL25 4K E3=53EU".*<etitioner contends that the issuance of a certificate of registration to the respondent is a discretionary, not a !inisterial act that !ay be co!pelled by !anda!us. It points out that under 2.>. =o. 8*, the petitioner is given the authority to deter!ine hether or not there is a need to establish a ne plant upon the evaluation of conditions laid do n therein. It insists that the certificate of registration as issued to respondent pursuant to ;esolution =o. A%8?)- and that the decision of the Court in Association of Philippine "oconut Desiccators v. Philippine "oconut Authorit+ *. rendered such certificate of registration void.*( <etitioner avers that, as held in a long line of cases, there can be no vested right in a license that is issued upon satisfactory sho ing of all re0uire!ents. Further, it points out that respondent failed to prove that it has satisfactorily co!plied ith all the re0uire!ents for the rene al of its certificate of registration. *, For its part, respondent asserts that the issue in this case is factual, that is, hether or not the per!it to operate as a desiccator as granted to it by virtue of ;esolution =o. A..?)* or ;esolution =o. A%8?)-. It posits that the trial court9s finding that the certificate

of registration as issued pursuant to ;esolution =o. A..?)*, as affir!ed by the Court of 3ppeals, is final and conclusive upon this Court, particularly since it is borne by the records and supported by substantial evidence. In a petition for revie on certiorari under ;ule .(, the Court is li!ited to revie ing errors of la only. *7 Further, respondent contends that hen petitioner approved its application for registration 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 rene al beco!es purely !inisterial. It posits that petitioner9s discretion lies only in applications relating to the four situations enu!erated in the said "ection %# $%& establishing a ne plant+ $*& e/panding the capacity of any e/isting desiccated plant+ $-& relocating any e/isting desiccated plant+ and $.& upgrading the efficiencies of any e/isting desiccated plant. <etitioner ill no longer e/ercise discretion in the subse0uent rene al of its certificate of registration.*8 ;espondent avers that petitioner9s contention that it has not co!plied ith all the re0uire!ents provided by la is a bare allegation. <etitioner did not even specify hat re0uire!ent has not been co!plied ith. Eoreover, that respondent has co!plied ith all the re0uire!ents for the rene al of its registration is a finding of fact hich had already been settled in the affir!ative by trial court and the C3, hence, final and conclusive upon this Court.*) The core issue in the present case is hether or not it is the !inisterial duty of petitioner <C3 to issue a certificate of registration to respondent and rene the sa!e fro! year to year fro! %))). The petition is !eritorious. "ection -, ;ule ,( of the %))7 ;ules of Civil <rocedure reads# "2C. -. Petition for mandamus.M 1hen any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unla fully neglects the perfor!ance of an act hich the la specifically enjoins as a duty resulting fro! an office, trust, or station, or unla fully e/cludes another fro! the use and enjoy!ent of a right or office to hich such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and ade0uate re!edy in the ordinary course of la , the person aggrieved thereby !ay file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts ith certainty and praying that judg!ent be rendered co!!anding the respondent, i!!ediately or at so!e other ti!e to be specified by the court, to do the act re0uired to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the da!ages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the rongful acts of the respondent. Eanda!us lies to co!pel the perfor!ance, hen refused, of a !inisterial duty, but not to co!pel the perfor!ance of a discretionary duty. -A 3 purely !inisterial act or duty is one hich an officer or tribunal perfor!s in a given state of facts, in a prescribed !anner, in obedience to the !andate of a legal authority, ithout regard to or the

e/ercise of his o n judg!ent upon the propriety or i!propriety of the act done. The duty is !inisterial only hen the discharge of the sa!e re0uires neither the e/ercise of official discretion or judg!ent.-% 1hen an official is re0uired and authorized to do a prescribed 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 clear legal right to the thing de!anded and it !ust be the i!perative duty of the respondent to perfor! the act re0uired. The rit neither confers po ers nor i!poses duties. It is si!ply a co!!and to e/ercise a po er already possessed and to perfor! a duty already i!posed.-- Eanda!us applies as a re!edy only here petitioner9s right is founded clearly in la and not hen it is doubtful. -. The rit ill not be granted here its issuance 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 hen the duty shall be perfor!ed, such duty is discretionary and not !inisterial. or

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 ith discretion 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 desiccated coconut processing plant. ;elative to the rene al of a certificate of registration, petitioner !ay refuse a registration unless the applicant has co!plied ith the procedural and substantive re0uire!ents for rene al. Bo ever, once the re0uire!ents are co!plied ith, the rene al of registration beco!es a !inisterial function of petitioner. Under "ection -.8 of 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA-, "eries of %)8%, -, the <C3 !ay refuse the registration or rene al thereof, -* /*ter -(9e.t-'/t-o(, the applicant is found to have been convicted of any cri!e involving !oral turpitude and in connection ith the operation of its business or an act violative of e/isting la s, rules and regulations ad!inistered by the <C3, or of unfair trade practices, as defined in said rules. 'uridical persons hose o ners, presidents, !anagers or other e/ecutive officers have been convicted !ay li6e ise be denied registration or rene al thereof. "ection -.7 of the sa!e ad!inistrative order also provides that a certificate of registration !ay be rene ed by filing an applications for rene al not later than 5ece!ber -% of each calendar year, and paying the rene al fee of <*AA.AA. Under 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA*$4&, "eries of %))%, all e/isting and duly registered 5C= plants shall rene the registration by filing their application ith petitioner under the follo ing guidelines# %.% In addition to the basic registration re0uire!ents under 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA-, "eries of %)8%, all applications shall contain the e/act rated capacity

applied for and the actual production capacity and utilization of the plant for the year i!!ediately follo ing the date and year of the application+ %.* The rated capacity applied for and approved by <C3 shall not be changed nor shall any i!prove!ent, upgrading of or addition of e0uip!ent be !ade by the plant e/cept upon prior application ith <C3. 3foresaid application shall be !ade at least three $-& !onths before the e/piration of the current registration for purposes of evaluation and approval by <C3+ %.- Fir!s found to be operating belo si/ty percent $,AN& of rated capacity for the past five years shall be reduced to its utilization capacity accordingly by <C3 !otu propio e/cept upon declaration by the 3uthority of the presence of e/traordinary disadvantageous cli!ate in the industry as defined in ite! C. causing such drop in utilization capacity+ %.. Fir!s hich are operating only ithin (AN utilization capacity for the past five years due to ra !aterial inade0uacy shall be advised by <C3 to relocate to any non?congested area as deter!ined in these guidelines+ %.( Fir!s falling belo the (AN utilization for the past five years ithout the <C3 declaration of e/traordinary disadvantageous cli!ate for 5C= industry set forth in ite! C. hereof shall be re0uired to reduce the rated capacity to raise the capacity utilization to such level above (AN. "hould this option fail to raise utilization levels ithin a period of one $%& year, the fir! shall be given the option to relocate to any non?congested area, other ise, <C3 shall shorten its per!it to operate to a period not !ore than % year fro! the date of advice+ %., Fir!s hich have stopped operating for *?- years and hich ould ish to resu!e operation !ust reapply for a ne license and ne rated capacity+ they should be treated as ne entrants+ %.7 3ny cessation of production covering a period of one !onth or !ore should be reported to the <C3 stating the reasons therein. Failure to report such cessation of production shall be considered a violation of these guidelines. -7 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA* also re0uires that 5C= fir!s applying for registration shall co!ply ith the follo ing conditions# *.% =e 5C= fir!s upon the effectivity of these guidelines, shall be issued per!its to operate in non?congested areas only as declared by <C3, in consultation ith the private sector, provided that ne applicants shall co!ply ith all procedures and re0uire!ents for registration under 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA-, "eries of %)8% and this >rder e/cept the provisions in ite! %.( hereof+ Target Ear6et

In addition to the regular docu!entary re0uire!ents for registration, ne entrants to the 5C= industry shall sub!it a s orn state!ent stating the na!es and addresses of all ne tentative foreign buyers ith their respective volu!e of 5C= products as evidenced by the purchase orders or instru!ents evidencing the sa!e. The <C3 should re0uire and ensure ne entrants to the industry to target ne !ar6ets and buyers. 3ll docu!ents and data to be sub!itted to <C3 in accordance hereof shall be treated ith ut!ost confidentiality. *.* Unless other ise declared by the <C3, the rated capacities and supply production in the regions, for purposes of deter!ining a congested and non? congested area shall be guided by the schedule of esti!ated nut production, crushing capacities and utilization rates as stated in 3==2L :3: hich for!s part of these guidelines.-8 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA* $@& provides that all per!its issued shall be valid for one year and rene able yearly thereafter only upon co!pliance of all re0uire!ents. -) <etitioner is not !andated to approve an original application for a certificate of registration or a rene al thereof on an annual basis !erely based on the allegations contained in the application and the pay!ent of the registration fees therefor. The <C3 is tas6ed to first in0uire into and ascertain, after an investigation, hether the applicant has co!plied ith the a priori procedural and substantive conditions to the approval of said application as provided in 2.>. =o. 8*,+ 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA-, "eries of %)8%+ and 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA*, "eries of %))%. 3s e!phasized by the Court in Association of Philippine "oconut Desiccators v. Philippine "oconut Authorit+ #.A It as only on >ctober *-, %)87 hen the <C3 adopted ;esolution =o. A(8?87, authorizing the establish!ent and operation of additional 5C= plants, in vie of the increased de!and for desiccated coconut products in the orld9s !ar6ets, particularly in @er!any, the =etherlands and 3ustralia. 2ven then, the opening of ne plants as !ade subject to :such i!ple!enting guidelines to be set forth by the 3uthority: and :subject to the final approval of the <resident.: The guidelines pro!ulgated by the <C3, as e!bodied in 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA*, series of %))%, inter alia authorized the opening of ne plants in :non? congested areas only as declared by the <C3: and subject to co!pliance by applicants ith :all procedures and re0uire!ents for registration under 3d!inistrative >rder =o. AA-, series of %)8% and this >rder.: In addition, as the opening of ne plants as pre!ised on the increased global de!and for desiccated coconut products, the ne entrants ere re0uired to sub!it s orn state!ents of the na!es and addresses of prospective foreign buyers. .% ;espondent is not entitled as a !atter of right to an annual registration or rene al of its certificate of registration !erely and solely based on ;esolution =o. A..?)* hich the <C3 @overning 4oard approved on >ctober *A, %))*. The resolution specifically provides that the opening of respondent9s ne desiccated coconut plant shall be subject

to the final approval of the <resident of the <hilippines, and co!pliance ith the necessary re0uire!ents and pertinent regulations of the <C3. The resolution is not and should not be construed to vest in the respondent a right to a certificate of registration or rene al of its certificate of registration ithout prior e/a!ination or investigation by the <C3 of the !erits of the application. ;espondent, or any applicant for that !atter, !ay be 0ualified to a license or rene al thereof for a particular year but it does not follo that it ould thenceforth be entitled to such certificate or to a yearly rene al thereof because, in the interi!, facts and circu!stances !ay occur hich !ay dis0ualify the applicant to a certificate or the rene al of its e/isting registration. <rescinding fro! the foregoing, e find that the petition has been !ooted. The records disclose that, three days after respondent had filed its petition for !anda!us, petitioner had e/tended its provisional certificate of registration until 5ece!ber %))). In effect, respondent has been able to operate as an e/porterJtraderJ!anufacturer of 5C= for the hole year of %))). 3s correctly observed by the court a 5uo, no da!age as actually suffered by respondent since it has continued to operate for the hole period of %))) although under provisional certificates of registration. Eanda!us is an e/traordinary rit and discretionary re!edy and should not be granted hen it ill achieve no beneficial result such as hen act sought to be co!pelled has been perfor!ed. .* Eoreover, hen the ;TC rendered judg!ent on 'anuary %8, *AAA, the period for hich the rene al certificate as sought had already e/pired. Case la is that !anda!us ill not be issued to co!pel the rene al of a license for a period hich has e/pired. .- If the right sought to be enforced by rit of !anda!us is or has beco!e a !ere abstract right, enforce!ent of hich ill be of no substantial or practical benefit to the plaintiff, the rit ill not issue though the applicant ould other ise be entitled to it. .. To arrant the issuance of a rit of !anda!us, it !ust appear that the rit ill be effectual as a re!edy, it should be denied here it ould be useless by reason of events occurring subse0uent to co!!ence!ent proceedings..( >n its face, the petition of respondent for !anda!us does not state a cause of action for a rit of !anda!us. The rule is that a cause of action has the follo ing ele!ents# $a& the legal right of the plaintiff+ $b& the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect that legal right+ and $c& an act or o!ission of the defendant that violates such right.., The cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated refuses, e/pressly or i!pliedly, to co!ply ith its duty..7 In this case, respondent had no cause of action to co!pel petitioner to issue a rene al certificate of registration for every year fro! %))) at the ti!e it filed the petition for !anda!us. 3t that ti!e, respondent had no right to de!and and the petitioner had no correlative duty, to issue a rene al certificate for the years follo ing the filing of the petition, hence, there could not have been any default on the part of petitioner. 1here a person or entity has not yet failed to perfor! a duty, action for !anda!us is pre!ature..8

Eanda!us is never granted to co!pel the perfor!ance of an act until there has been an actual, as distinguished fro! an anticipated, refusal to act. .) This is true even if there is a strong presu!ption that the persons ho! it is sought to coerce by the rit ill refuse to perfor! their duty hen the proper ti!e arrives. (A Its function is to co!pel the perfor!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 is incu!bent on respondent hen the application for a rit is !ade. (% = ERE,ORE, pre!ises considered, the petition is GRANTE". The 5ecision of the Court of 3ppeals dated >ctober ), *AA*, and ;esolution dated Earch %), *AA. are REVERSE" and SET ASI"E. The petition for !anda!us is "IS!ISSE". SO OR"ERE".

TBI;5 5IFI"I>= G.R. No. 111455. "e0ember 26, 1994> !ARISSA A. !OSSESGEL", petitioner, vs. COURT O, A88EALS /(& CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, respondents. "ECISION 8AR"O, J.< The case is an appeal via certiorari under ;ule .( of the ;evised ;ules of Court fro! the decision of the Court of 3ppeals C%D affir!ing that of the ;egional Trial Court, <asig, 4ranch ,), dis!issing the petition of the putative father, later substituted by the un ed !other, to co!pel the local civil registrar of Eandaluyong, Eetro Eanila, C*D to register the certificate of live birth of petitionerOs illegiti!ate child using the surna!e of the presu!ed father. >n 5ece!ber *, %)8), petitioner Earissa 3lfaro Eossesgeld, single, -% years of age, gave birth to a baby boy at the Eedical City @eneral Bospital, Eandaluyong, Eetro Eanila.C-D It as the third ti!e that she delivered a child. C.D The presu!ed father, one 2leazar "iriban Calasan, .* years old, a la yer, !arried, and a resident of 8,-* "an 'ose "t. @uadalupe =uevo, Ea6ati, Eetro Eanila, signed the birth certificate of the child as the infor!ant, indicating therein the childOs first na!e as 'onathan, !iddle na!e as Eossesgeld, and last na!e as Calasan. 4oth the presu!ed father, 2leazar ". Calasan and the !other Earissa 3. Eossesgeld, acco!plished the dorsal side of the certificate of live birth stating that the infor!ation contained therein ere true and correct. In addition, la yer Calasan e/ecuted an affidavit ad!itting paternity of the child.C(D >n 5ece!ber ,, %)8), due to the refusal of the person in charge at the hospital to placing the presu!ed fatherOs surna!e as the childOs surna!e in the certificate of live birth, petitioner hi!self sub!itted the certificate to the office of the local civil registrar of Eandaluyong, for registration. >n 5ece!ber *8, %)8), the !unicipal treasurer of Eandaluyong, as officer in charge of the office of the local civil registrar, rejected the registration on the basis of Circular =o. ., dated >ctober %%, %)88, of the Civil ;egistrar @eneral, providing that under 3rticle %7, of the Fa!ily Code of the <hilippines, illegiti!ate children born on or after 3ugust -, %)88, shall use the surna!e of their !other. C,D >n >ctober ), %))A, la yer 2leazar ". Calasan personally ent to the Local Civil ;egistrar of Eandaluyong to in0uire about the status of the registration of his illegiti!ate childOs certificate of birth, but as furnished ith a copy of the letter dated 'anuary %7, %))A, of the Civil ;egistrar @eneral denying registration of the certificate of live birth of petitionerOs illegiti!ate child using the fatherOs surna!e, for it is contrary to la . C7D >n =ove!ber 7, %))A, la yer 2leazar ". Calasan filed ith the ;egional Trial Court, <asig, 4ranch ,), a petition for mandamus to co!pel the Local Civil ;egistrar of

Eandaluyong, Eetro Eanila, to register the certificate of live birth of his alleged illegiti!ate son using his surna!e.C8D >n >ctober *), %))%, the lo er court denied the petition, ruling that illegiti!ate children !ust use the surna!e of their !others, regardless of hether or not they had been ac6no ledged by their fathers in the record of birth. C)D >n =ove!ber *%, %))%, petitioner Calasan filed a !otion for reconsideration of the denial. In the !eanti!e, on 5ece!ber ), %))%, he filed a !otion for leave to a!end petition and to ad!it a!ended petition, substituting the childOs !other Earissa 3. Eossesgeld as the petitioner.C%AD >n February %%, %))*, the lo er court granted the !otion for leave to a!end petition.C%%D Bo ever, on 'une -, %))*, the lo er court denied the !otion for reconsideration. In due ti!e, petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of 3ppeals. >n 'uly *-, %))-, the Court of 3ppeals rendered decision affir!ing the judg!ent appealed fro!.C%*D Bence, this petition. The issue raised is hether mandamus lies to co!pel the Local Civil ;egistrar to register a certificate of live birth of an illegiti!ate child using the alleged fatherOs surna!e here the latter ad!itted paternity. 1e deny the petition. 3rticle %7, of the Fa!ily Code of the <hilippines C%-D provides that Pillegiti!ate children shall use the surna!e and shall be under the parental authority of their !other, and shall be entitled to support in confor!ity ith this Code.Q This is the rule regardless of hether or not the father ad!its paternity. Conse0uently, the Local Civil ;egistrar correctly refused to register the certificate of live birth of petitionerOs illegiti!ate child using the surna!e of the alleged father, even ith the latterOs consent. >f course, the putative father, though a !uch !arried !an, !ay legally adopt his o n illegiti!ate child.C%.D In case of adoption, the child shall be considered a legiti!ate child of the adopter, entitled to use his surna!e. C%(D The Fa!ily Code has effectively repealed the provisions of 3rticle -,, of the Civil Code of the <hilippines giving a natural child ac6no ledged by both parents the right to use the surna!e of the father. The Fa!ily Code has li!ited the classification of children to legiti!ate and illegiti!ate, C%,D thereby eli!inating the category of ac6no ledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction.C%7D Conse0uently, e rule that mandamus ill not lie to co!pel the local civil registrar to register the certificate of live birth of an illegiti!ate child using the fatherOs surna!e, even ith the consent of the latter. $andamus does not lie to co!pel the perfor!ance of an act prohibited by la .

= ERE,ORE, the Court 52=I2" the petition for revie on certiorari. 1e 3FFI;E the decision of the Court of 3ppeals and that of the ;egional Trial Court, <asig, 4ranch ,), dis!issing the petition for mandamus in "pecial Civil 3ction =o. ,A%.,. Costs against petitioner. SO OR"ERE".