Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DOMINGO R. MANALO v. PAIC SAVINGS BANK

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 146754 2012-03-21	SPS. JESSE CACHOPERO AND BEMA CACHOPERO v. RACHEL CELESTIAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In addition, mandamus applies as a remedy when the petitioner's right is founded clearly in law and is not doubtful.[35]
	GR No. 176831 2010-01-15	UY KIAO ENG v. NIXON LEE NACHURA, J.
Recognized further in this jurisdiction is the principle that mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations.[22] Generally, mandamus will not lie to enforce purely private contract rights, and will not lie against an individual unless some obligation in the nature of a public or quasi-public duty is imposed.[23] The writ is not appropriate to enforce a private right against an individual.[24] The writ of mandamus lies to enforce the execution of an act, when, otherwise, justice would be obstructed; and, regularly, issues only in cases relating to the public and to the government; hence, it is called a prerogative writ.[25] To preserve its prerogative character, mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in matters relating to the public.[26]
	GR NO. 156527 2007-03-05	NEMESIO M. CALIM v. JESUS F. GUERRERO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is elementary that mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioner's right is founded clearly on law and not when it is doubtful.[20] In varying language, the principle echoed and reechoed is that legal rights may be enforced by mandamus only if those rights are well-defined, clear and certain.[21] A writ of mandamus can be issued only when petitioner's legal right to the performance of a particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. [22] A clear legal right is a right which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law.[23] Mandamus, therefore, is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its chief use and not a discretionary duty.[24]
	GR NO. 159794 2006-12-19	MACLARING M. LUCMAN v. ALIMATAR MALAWI TINGA, J.
The relationship being contractual in nature, mandamus is therefore not an available remedy since mandamus does not lie to enforce the performance of contractual obligations.[37]