This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Though the provision appears unambiguous and unequivocal, the Court has consistently held that the phrase "decision, order, or ruling" of constitutional commissions, the COMELEC included, that may be brought directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari is not all-encompassing, and that it only relates to those rendered in the commissions' exercise of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.[51] In the case of the COMELEC, this would limit the provision's coverage to the decisions, orders, or rulings issued pursuant to its authority to be the sole judge of generally all controversies and contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of elective offices.[52] | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Since petitioners' right to the payment of their salaries by the City Government of Dumaguete is still unsettled at this point, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus against respondents to make such payment. Mandamus applies only where the petitioner's right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful.[38] The writ will not issue to compel an official to give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law.[39] Mandamus will not issue to establish a right, but only to enforce one that is already established.[40] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| With respect to the propriety of the remedy availed by petitioner, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the special civil action of mandamus is not the proper remedy to question the legality of the exercise of the right to top by private respondent. It does not lie to compel the award of a contract subject of bidding to an unsuccessful bidder.[14] Mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioner's right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful.[15] Thus: "In order that a writ of mandamus may issue, it is essential that the person petitioning for the same has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. It neither confers powers nor imposes duties and is never issued in doubtful cases. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed."[16] | |||||