Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 605 views

    Velasco vs. Belmonte

    Uploaded by

    Abe Puntual
    This case involves a petition for mandamus filed by Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco against Speaker Belmonte Jr. and others. Velasco claims he is the legal winner of the 2013 election for representative of Marinduque based on final COMELEC and Supreme Court rulings. The issue is whether mandamus or quo warranto is the appropriate remedy. The Court held mandamus is appropriate because the petition seeks to enforce clear legal duties based on final rulings, not determine disputed title to the office. As there are no factual disputes, a writ of mandamus should issue ordering Velasco's oath of office and assumption of representative duties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Velasco vs. Belmonte

    Uploaded by

    Abe Puntual
    605 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition for mandamus filed by Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco against Speaker Belmonte Jr. and others. Velasco claims he is the legal winner of the 2013 election for representative of Marinduque based on final COMELEC and Supreme Court rulings. The issue is whether mandamus or quo warranto is the appropriate remedy. The Court held mandamus is appropriate because the petition seeks to enforce clear legal duties based on final rulings, not determine disputed title to the office. As there are no factual disputes, a writ of mandamus should issue ordering Velasco's oath of office and assumption of representative duties.

    Original Description:

    Qou Warranto

    Original Title

    Velasco vs. Belmonte,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a petition for mandamus filed by Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco against Speaker Belmonte Jr. and others. Velasco claims he is the legal winner of the 2013 election for representative of Marinduque based on final COMELEC and Supreme Court rulings. The issue is whether mandamus or quo warranto is the appropriate remedy. The Court held mandamus is appropriate because the petition seeks to enforce clear legal duties based on final rulings, not determine disputed title to the office. As there are no factual disputes, a writ of mandamus should issue ordering Velasco's oath of office and assumption of representative duties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    605 views2 pages

    Velasco vs. Belmonte

    Uploaded by

    Abe Puntual
    This case involves a petition for mandamus filed by Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco against Speaker Belmonte Jr. and others. Velasco claims he is the legal winner of the 2013 election for representative of Marinduque based on final COMELEC and Supreme Court rulings. The issue is whether mandamus or quo warranto is the appropriate remedy. The Court held mandamus is appropriate because the petition seeks to enforce clear legal duties based on final rulings, not determine disputed title to the office. As there are no factual disputes, a writ of mandamus should issue ordering Velasco's oath of office and assumption of representative duties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Rule 66- Qou Warranto

    VELASCO vs. BELMONTE, JR.,

    FACTS OF THE CASE:

    01. Before this Court is a Petition for Mandamus filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
    as amended, by Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco (Velasco) against Hon. Feliciano R. Belmonte,
    Jr. (Speaker Belmonte, Jr.), Speaker, House of Representatives, Hon. Marilyn B. Barua-
    Yap (Sec. Gen. Barua-Yap ), Secretary General, House of Representatives, and Hon.
    Regina Ongsiako Reyes (Reyes), Representative, Lone District of the Province of
    Marinduque .
    02. Velasco principally alleges that he is the "legal and rightful winner during the May 13,
    2013 elections in accordance with final and executory resolutions of the Commission on
    Elections (COMELEC) and [this] Honorable Court;"2 thus, he seeks the following reliefs:
    that a WRIT OF MANDAMUS against the HON. SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR. be
    issued ordering said respondent to administer the proper OATH in favor of petitioner
    Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco for the position of Representative for the Lone District of
    Marinduque; -and allow petitioner to assume the position of representative for
    Marinduque and exercise the powers and prerogatives of said position of Marinduque
    representative; xxx

    ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for Mandamus and not petition for qua warranto is
    appropriate in the present case.

    Held:

    The Court held that after a painstaking evaluation of the allegations in this petition, it is
    readily apparent that this special civil action is really one for mandamus and not a quo
    warranto case, contrary to the asseverations of the respondents.

    A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to the use or
    exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not
    well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. Where the action is filed
    by a private person, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted position;
    otherwise, respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the office.

    In this case, given the present factual milieu, i.e., (i) the final and executory resolutions of
    this Court in G.R. No. 207264; (ii) the final and executory resolutions of the COMELEC in
    SPA No. 13-053 (DC) cancelling Reyes's Certificate of Candidacy; and (iii) the final and
    executory resolution of the COMELEC in SPC No. 13-010 declaring null and void the
    proclamation of Reyes and proclaiming Velasco as the winning candidate for the position of
    Representative for the Lone District of the Province of Marinduque - it cannot be claimed
    that the present petition is one for the determination of the right of Velasco to the claimed
    office.
    To be sure, what is prayed for herein is merely the enforcement of clear legal duties and
    not to try disputed title. That the respondents make it appear so will not convert this
    petition to one for quo warranto.
    Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that any person may file a
    verified petition formandamus "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
    unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
    resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and
    enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain,
    speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." A petition for mandamus will
    prosper if it is shown that the subject thereof is a ministerial act or duty, and not purely
    discretionary on the part of the board, officer or person, and that the petitioner has a well-
    defined, clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.

    You might also like