Cariño v. Capulong, G.R. No.

97203, May 26, 1993

FACTS:

AMACC (AMA Computer College) sent a letter of intent to DECS Region IX Director
Venancio Nava for the application to operate. Nava reminded DECS that the filing of
application to operate as an educational institution must be filed at least one year
before the start of the classes. AMA operated by starting their enrollment and hold
regular classes without permit to operate. As a remedial action, Nava as Regional
Director of DECS directed AMA to stop enrollment and desist operation without proper
authorization. Upon filing of AMA for application to operate as an acknowledgement
NAVA reiterated to AMA’s direction to stop operation with a warning that failure to
comply would constrain the office of DECS to invoke Memorandum of Agreement with
the Defense department to stop its unlawful operation in which AMA ignored the said
warning. Upon inspecting of DECS, through inspection team they confirmed that AMA is
still operating and defied the direction of the DECS Regional Director. Furthermore,
DECS requested military assistance to effect closure. AMA sent a letter to put on hold
the closure while waiting for the decision of the DECS secretary. The DECS secretary
denied the AMA Application to operate on June 27, 1990.

Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition, certiorari and mandamus to RTC Manila.
However, the RTC Manila dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The CA dismissed the
petition upon appeal of the petitioner and denied its motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issuance of the permit in question by the DECS is not a ministerial
duty but a discretionary duty?

HELD:

Yes, it is not a ministerial duty but a discretionary duty. The SC held that Finally, the
action filed by the private respondents in the court below is a petition for mandamus to
compel the petitioners to approve their application to operate AMACC-Davao City as an
educational institution. As a rule, mandamus will lie only to compel an officer to
perform a ministerial duty but not a discretionary function.

A ministerial duty is one which is so clear and specific as to leave no room for the
exercise of discretion in its performance. On the other hand, a discretionary duty is that
which by its nature requires the exercise of judgment. As explained in the case of
Symaco vs. Aquino,

“A purely ministerial act or duty, in contradistinction to a discretional act, is one which

an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
 obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his
own judgment, upon the propriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a
public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be
performed, such duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires
neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.”

In the present case, the issuance of the permit in question is not a ministerial duty of
the petitioners. It is a discretionary duty or function on the part of the petitioners
because it had to be exercised in accordance with—and not in violation of—the law and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

RATIONALE:

The issuance of a permit to operate an educational institution cannot be

compelled by mandamus.—In the present case, the issuance of the permit in question
is not a ministerial duty of the petitioners. It is a discretionary duty or function on the part
of the petitioners because it had to be exercised in accordance with—and not in violation
of—the law and its implementing Rules and Regulations.