This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-10-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The writ of mandamus likewise cannot issue. The Office of the Special Prosecutor has not sufficiently shown that public respondent has the imperative duty to conduct three hearings per week. Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty.[17] It does not lie to control or review the exercise of discretion.[18] It is unavailable to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either. Of course, this rule admits of exceptions as when there is grave abuse of discretion,[19] manifest injustice[20] or palpable excess of authority.[21] But, as discussed above, none has been shown thus far in this case. Worth stressing, the Office of the Special Prosecutor has not shown how the assailed Order of public respondent can constitute an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. | |||||