Writ of prohibition
The writ of prohibition does not lie against the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. Since in issuing the questioned IRR of R.A. No. 9207, the National Government Administration Committee was not exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function, which is the scope of a petition for prohibition under Section 2, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the instant prohibition should be dismissed outright. Where the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, petitioners’ remedy is an ordinary action for its nullification, an action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
As a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done. However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.
Funa vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Erminta, G.R. No. 184740, 2010 February 11, 2010
As a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done. However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.
Read the following cases:
Holy Spirit Homeowners Association vs. Defensor, G.R. No. 163980, August 3, 2006 Funa vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Erminta, G.R. No. 184740, 2010 February 11, 2010