Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY v. PRIMEX COCO PRODUCTS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 211140 2016-01-12	LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Certificate of Candidacy of respondent REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES is hereby CANCELLED.[6]
	GR No. 160932 2013-01-14	SPECIAL PEOPLE v. NESTOR M. CANDA BERSAMIN, J.
A key principle to be observed in dealing with petitions for mandamus is that such extraordinary remedy lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary.[41] A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment.[42]
	GR No. 163196 2008-07-04	FIRST MARBELLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION v. AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Yet, in order to avail itself of a writ of mandamus, petitioner must establish that it has a clear right to the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the condominium unit of respondent.[25] Under Circular No. 7-2002,[26] implementing Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 99-10-05-0,[27] it is mandatory that a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure be supported by evidence that petitioner holds a special power or authority to foreclose, thus:Sec. 1. All applications for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage, whether under the direction of the Sheriff or a notary public pursuant to Art. No. 3135, as amended, and Act 1508, as amended, shall be filed with the Executive Judge, through the Clerk of Court, who is also the Ex-Officio Sheriff (A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, as amended, March 1, 2001).
	GR NO. 132856 2006-08-28	AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN v. CA TINGA, J.
A writ of mandamus is proper to compel the issuance of a writ of execution. In such a case, the person to whom the writ is addressed has no option but to obey the writ. Refusal to obey it is clearly a violation of the order of, and a manifest disrespect towards, a court of superior jurisdiction.[41] However, for a writ of mandamus to be issued, it is essential that petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required.[42]