This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-09-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions that the remedy of mandamus is employed only to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to require anyone to fulfill a discretionary one. The issuance of the writ is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.[20] In Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners Association, Inc.,[21] we emphasized, through the erudite and eloquent ponencia of Justice Dante O. Tinga, that the writ can be issued only when the applicant's legal right to the performance of a particular act sought to be compelled is clear and complete, one which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law, thus:In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential that, on the one hand, petitioner has a clear legal right to the claim that is sought and that, on the other hand, respondent has an imperative duty to perform that which is demanded of him. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to adjudicate. Thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to secure a legal right but to implement that which is already established. Unless the right to relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will not issue.[22] | |||||
|
2007-08-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The purpose of the rule is to protect parties against undue and unnecessary litigation and to ensure that the court will have the benefit of having before it the real adverse parties in the consideration of the case. This rule, however, is not to be narrowly and restrictively construed, and its application should be neither dogmatic nor rigid at all times but viewed in consonance with extant realities and practicalities.[27] Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other, in an action upon that contract, the real parties-in-interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to the said contract.[28] | |||||
|
2007-03-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is elementary that mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioner's right is founded clearly on law and not when it is doubtful.[20] In varying language, the principle echoed and reechoed is that legal rights may be enforced by mandamus only if those rights are well-defined, clear and certain.[21] A writ of mandamus can be issued only when petitioner's legal right to the performance of a particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. [22] A clear legal right is a right which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law.[23] Mandamus, therefore, is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its chief use and not a discretionary duty.[24] | |||||