Facts:

On July 27, 1936, Pedro Amante, in his capacity as a private citizen, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The petition was directed against Serafin P. Hilado, the Solicitor-General of the Philippines, and sought to compel Hilado to initiate quo warranto proceedings aimed at dissolving the "Colegio de San Jose" as a corporation sole and forfeiting its corporate franchise. Amante's petition alleged that the institution violated provisions of the Corporation Law, specifically citing its failure to file a certified copy of its by-laws, despite a prior request from the Bureau of Commerce and Industry to do so. In response to Amante's petition, the Solicitor-General filed a demurrer, arguing that he had discretion under the law concerning the initiation of such proceedings and that this discretion could not be controlled by a writ of mandamus. The Court sustained the demurrer on the

...

Facts:

Pedro Amante, in his capacity as a private citizen, petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila on July 27, 1936.

• He sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Solicitor-General to institute quo warranto proceedings against "Colegio de San Jose."
• The aim was to dissolve the corporation sole and forfeit its corporate franchise.

The petition alleged a violation of the Corporation Law.

• It claimed that "Colegio de San Jose" failed to file a certified copy of its by-laws, despite a request by the Bureau of Commerce and Industry.

The Solicitor-General demurred to the petition.

• He argued that the discretion vested upon him by law in deciding whether or not to commence quo warranto proceedings could not be controlled by a writ of mandamus.
• He further maintained that the petition failed to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

The Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the demurrer.

• The petitioner did not amend his complaint after the demurrer was sustained.
• A judgment was rendered sentencing him to recover nothing.

Section 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure was pivotal in this case.

• It directs that the Attorney-General or the fiscal of any province must commence specified actions when directed by the Chief Executive and when there is good reason to believe that the case can be proven.
• The provision inherently involves the exercise of discretion regarding whether or not to initiate such proceedings.

Issue:

Whether a petition for a writ of mandamus may compel the Solicitor-General to institute quo warranto proceedings against "Colegio de San Jose."

• Should the alleged violation of the Corporation Law provide sufficient ground for such proceedings?
• Does the petitioner’s claim overcome the discretionary authority vested in the Solicitor-General?

Whether mandamus may be used to control or review the exercise of discretion by a public officer.

• Is a writ of mandamus appropriate when the law grants the officer the discretion to decide whether or not to act?
• Can mandamus be issued in situations where there is no manifest abuse of discretion?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)