Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 156527 2007-03-05	NEMESIO M. CALIM v. JESUS F. GUERRERO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon said public officer the right and duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any matter in which he is required to act.[25] It is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.[26]
	GR NO. 157783 2005-09-23	NILO PALOMA v. DANILO MORA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Mandamus lies to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty.[23] Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon said public officer the right and duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any matter in which he is required to act. It is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.[24]
	GR No. 135249 2004-01-16	ATTY. ORLANDO SALVADOR FOR v. ANIANO DESIERTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Indeed, we have consistently ruled that unless there are good and compelling reasons, we cannot interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigating and prosecutory powers.[14]