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 of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called
the Writ 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 of Amparo. 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 of Amparo arise out of
very real and concrete circumstances. Judicial responses cannot be as
tragically symbolic or ritualistic as granting the privilege of the Writ
of Amparo. (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.