DISTINCTION BETWEEN WRIT OF AMPARO AND PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO

Writ of Amparo; difference between the privilege of the Writ of Amparo and the actual order called the Writ of Amparo.The privilege of the Writ ofAmparoshould be distinguished from theactual ordercalled theWrit of Amparo as enunciated in De Lima vs. Gatdula. The privilege includes the availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the rule on the Writ ofAmparo.After examining the petition and its attached affidavits, the Return and the evidence presented in the summary hearing, the judgment should detail the required acts from the respondent that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or threat to the petitioners life, liberty or security.

A judgment which simply grants the privilege of the writ cannot be executed, it should be the then called the actual order of the writ of amparo.. It is tantamount to a failure of the judge to intervene and grant judicial succor to the petitioner.

Petitions filed to avail of the privilege of the Writ ofAmparoarise out of very real and concrete circumstances. Judicial responses cannot be as tragically symbolic or ritualistic as granting the privilege of the Writ ofAmparo.(De Lima vs. Gatdula)

DISTINCTION BETWEEN WRIT OF KALIKASAN AND WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS (SRV-DiscDam)

Subject Matter The Writ of Kalikasan is available against unlawful act or any person or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. WoCMa is directed against the unlawful neglect in the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein; or the unlawful exclusion of another from the use or enjoyment of such right and in both instances, there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Respondent In a petition for writ of kalikasan, where the respondent may be a private individual or entity. The respondent in a petition for continuing mandamus is only the government or its officers.

Venue A petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus may be filed in the following: (a) the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred; (b) the CA; or (c) the SC. Given the magnitude of the damage, the application for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan can only be filed with the SC or any station of the CA.

Discovery measures. The Rule on the WCM does not contain any provision for discovery measures, unlike the Rule on WOK which incorporates the procedural environmental right of access to information through the use of discovery measures such as ocular inspection order and production order.

Damages for personal injury. The WCM allows damages for the malicious neglect of the performance of the legal duty of the respondent, identical Rule 65.

In contrast, no damages may be awarded in a petition for the issuance of a WOK consistent with the public interest character of the petition. A party who avails of this petition but who also wishes to be indemnified for injuries suffered may file another suit for the recovery of damages since the Rule on WOK allows for the institution of separate actions

SIMILARITIES OF WRIT OF KALIKASAN AND WoCMa

Who may file. A writ of continuing mandamus and writ of kalikasan is available to a broad range of persons such as natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, peoples organization, NGO, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened to be violated.

Docket Fees Both petitions are also exempted from docket fees

TEPO Both an ancillary remedy for both

Replevin vs. Preliminary Attachment

RC-DP-X-Subject

First, as to the purpose replevin is recovery of a chattel capable of manual delivery while an attachment seeks to place the property under the custody of the court.

Second, the presumption of possession in replevin lies with the plaintiff while in attachment, it lies with the defendant

Third, as to extent, in a replevin, one can recover property in the actual or constructive possession of the defendant while in an attachment it can reach even that property in the possession of a third person

Fourth, replevin refers to personal property capable of manual delivery while an attachment refers to all.

Fifth, in replevin concealment or fraud need not be shown unlike in the case of an attachment

Sixth, a replevin cannot reach properties in custodia legis while an attachment can.

Seventh, in a replevin the bond is double while in an attachment it is fixed.

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN TPO/PPO under 9262 and TPO/PPO Under 02-11-12

The principal action under RA 9262 is a case of violence against women and children while the one on AM 02-11-12-SC can be of cases of nullity of marriage, annulment and legal separation. Further, the reliefs available are different according to the enumeration from both RA 9262 and AM 02-11-12. People who can file a protection order are enumerated for RA 9262 but for the TPO in the AM, it can be issued motu proprio by the court and any party, guardian or custodian.