This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Despite the foregoing, Velasco asserts that both respondents Speaker Belmonte, Jr. and Sec. Gen. Barua-Yap are unlawfully neglecting the performance of their alleged ministerial duties; thus, illegally excluding him (Velasco) from the enjoyment of his right as the duly elected Representative of the Lone District of Marinduque.[26] | |||||
|
2015-04-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that the applicant 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.[13] The petitioner bears the burden to show that there is such a clear legal right to the performance of the act, and a corresponding compelling duty on the part of the respondent to perform the act. The remedy of mandamus, as an extraordinary writ, lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.[14] Clearly, the use of discretion and the performance of a ministerial act are mutually exclusive. | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The writ of mandamus will issue when the act sought to be performed is ministerial.[45] An act is ministerial when it does not require the exercise of judgment and the act is performed in compliance with a legal mandate.[46] In a petition for mandamus, the burden of proof is on petitioner to show that one is entitled to the performance of a legal right and that respondent has a corresponding duty to perform the act.[47] Mandamus will not lie "to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not to do, or to give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law."[48] | |||||