This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-10-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be enjoined must be a ministerial act or duty.[59] An act is ministerial if the act should be performed "[under] 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 [the tribunal or corporation's] own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done."[60] The tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person must have no choice but to perform the act specifically enjoined by law.[61] This is opposed to a discretionary act wherein the officer has the choice to decide how or when to perform the duty.[62] | |||||
|
2011-03-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc.,[8] the Court held that, "What one cannot do directly, he cannot do indirectly."[9] In Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino,[10] quoting Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[11] the Court held that, "This Court has long and consistently adhered to the legal maxim that those that cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly."[12] In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[13] the Court held that, "No one is allowed to do indirectly what he is prohibited to do directly."[14] | |||||