Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSALINDA MAYUGA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176831 2010-01-15	UY KIAO ENG v. NIXON LEE NACHURA, J.
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law.[14] This definition recognizes the public character of the remedy, and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no interest.[15] The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most especially when the public right involved is mandated by the Constitution.[16] As the quoted provision instructs, mandamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.[17]
	AM No. MTJ-08-1706 2009-04-16	MUTYA B. VICTORIO v. JUDGE MAXWELL S. ROSETE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this case, it is very clear that Judge Rosete disregarded a basic, unequivocal rule that execution shall issue as a matter of right when the order becomes final and executory.[27] It is moreover hornbook doctrine that when this point is reached, the trial court has the ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution to enforce the order.[28] The rule admits of exceptions,[29] but none obtains in this case. Hence, it is mandatory for Judge Rosete to issue the writ prayed for.
	AM No. RTJ-03-1788 2003-09-05	JORGE F. ABELLA v. JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN PANGANIBAN, J.
In this case, it is very clear that respondent disregarded a basic, unequivocal rule that execution shall issue as a matter of right when the order becomes final and executory.[11] It is moreover hornbook doctrine that when this point is reached, the trial court has the ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution to enforce the order.[12] The rule admits of exceptions,[13] but none obtained in this case. Hence, it was mandatory for respondent to issue the writ prayed for.
	GR No. 131237 2000-07-31	ROSENDO T. UY v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finding the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal a clear duty of respondent Judge under the law, mandamus can and should lie against him. Indeed, mandamus will lie to compel a judge or other public official to perform a duty specifically enjoined by law once it is shown that the judge or public official has unlawfully neglected the performance thereof.[9]