G.R. No. 252118| De Leon v. Duterte,
G.R. No. 252118[1]| De Leon v. Duterte,
Resolution dated MAY 8, 2020
DOCTRINES:
1. Mandamus is
defined as a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the
act required to be done when it or he/she:
(i) unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station; or
(ii) unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law.
2. It bears
stressing that for a petition for mandamus to sufficiently
allege a cause of action, petitioner must satisfy the following elements:
(i) the legal
right of the plaintiff;
(ii) the correlative
obligation of the defendant to respect that legal right; and
(iii) an act or omission of the defendant that violates such right.[2] The cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated refuses, expressly or impliedly, to comply with the duty.
FACTS:
By way of the present petition for mandamus, petitioner seeks to:
1. compel respondents to disclose all the:
(a) medical and psychological/psychiatric examination results;
(b) health bulletins, and
(c) other health records of the President ever since he assumed the Presidency; and
2. compel the President to,
(a) undergo:
(i) additional confirmatory medical and
(ii) psychological/psychiatric examinations;
(b) which shall be publicly disclosed in order to ensure the accuracy of the health records to be released. Petitioner anchors his alleged right to be informed on the basis of Section 12, Article VII and Section 7, Article III, in relation to Section 28,[3] Article II, of the 1987 Constitution.
From petitioner’s standpoint, Section 12, Article VII of the Constitution is a self-executing command.
Petitioner
argues that the illnesses acknowledged by the President, i.e., Buerger's
Disease, Barretfs Esophagus, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, and Myasthenia
Gravis, together with migraine and spinal issues; are serious
illnesses within the ambit of Section 12, Article VII of the Constitution. He
also asserts that these illnesses should be considered in addition to the
psychological report submitted in the course of the trial court proceedings for
the declaration of nullity of marriage involving the President. The report
stated that the President has “Antisocial and Narcissistic Personality
Disorder.” For petitioner, the alleged illnesses and psychological
disorders of the President provide sufficient basis to trigger the
right of the Filipino people to be informed under Section 12, Article VII and
Section 7, Article III of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
WON the petition failed to set forth the material allegations to establish a prima facie case for mandamus. – YES.
HELD:
YES.
Mandamus is defined as a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the act required to be done when it or he/she 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, there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law. [4]
It is an extraordinary remedy that is issued only in extreme necessity, and the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and speedy relief to one who has a clear legal right to the performance of the act compelled. [5]
It bears stressing that for a petition for mandamus to sufficiently allege a cause of action, petitioner must satisfy the following elements:
(1) the
legal right of the plaintiff;
(2) the
correlative obligation of the defendant to respect that legal right; and
(3) an act or omission of the defendant that violates such right.[6] The cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated refuses, expressly or impliedly, to comply with the duty. [7]
After a punctilious evaluation of the petition, the Court finds that the averments and arguments in the petition failed to establish a prima facie case for mandamus, i.e., that the reliefs sought constitute ministerial duties on the part of respondents, and that there is a clear legal right on petitioner part to demand the performance of these ministerial duties.
Furthermore, petitioner alleges the serious illnesses purportedly suffered by the President, together with the personality disorders which complicate the management of the President’s illnesses. xxx However, the claims are merely based on what he perceived from the online news articles discussing the President’s illnesses. Worse, these news articles are, as the Court has consistently ruled, characterized as "'hearsay evidence, twice removed, and are thus without any probative value, unless offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted.” [8]
Based on the allegations in the petition itself, petitioner failed to establish the existence of a clear legal right that was violated, or that he is entitled to the writ of mandamus prayed for.
Needless
to state, the Court finds it unnecessary to address the other issues
raised in the petition.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the Extremely Urgent Petition for Mandamus is DISMISSED.
[1] Dino S. De Leon v. Rodrigo Roa Duterte, President of the Republic of the Philippines, and the Office of the President through Salvador C. Medialdea, in his capacity as Executive Secretary
[2] Phil. Coconut Authority v. Primex Coco Products, Inc., 528 Phil. 365, 387 (2006), citing Jimenez, Jr. v. Jordana, 486 Phil 452, 469-470 (2004).
[3] Section 28, Article II of tlie 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
[4] Padilla, et al. v. Congress of the Philippines, et al., 814 Phil. 344, 377 (2017) citing Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, 629 Phil. 629, 737 (2010).
[5] Ha Datu Tawahig v. Lapinid, G.R. No. 221139, March 20，2019，citing Lihaylihay v. Tan, G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018.
[6] Phil. Coconut Authority v. Primex Coco Products, Inc., 528 Phil. 365, 387 (2006), citing Jimenez, Jr. v. Jordana, 486 Phil 452, 469-470 (2004).
[7] City of Davao v. Olanolan, 808 Phil. 561, 569 (2017)citing Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda, 701 Phil. 365,386-387 (2013),
[8] Representative Lagman, et al. v. Hon. Mediaidea, et al, 812 Phil. 179, 312 (2017), citing Feria v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 412, 423 (2000).