DE LIMA v.

GATDULA

Facts:
 Respondent filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo directed against
petitioners De Lima et al. with the RTC of Manila
 Respondent wanted petitioners to cease and desist from framing him up for the fake
ambush incident by filing bogus charges of Frusrated Murder against respondent in
relation to the alleged ambush incident
 However, the judge issued summons instead and ordered petitioners to file an Answer,
and set the case for hearing.
 During the hearing, the counsel for petitioners manifested that a Return, not an Answer,
is appropriate for Amparo cases
 The Judge, in his order, insisted that “[s]ince no writ has been issued, return is not the
required pleading but answer.”
 The Judge proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main case, thereafter, he ordered the
parties to file their respective memoranda within five working days after that hearing.
 The RTC then rendered a decision granting the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and the
interim reliefs prayed for RTC denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
 Petitioners now assail the RTC Decision via Rule 45.

Issue:
Whether the Writ of Amparo can be executed and reviewed

Ruling:
 This Decision pertained to the issuance of the writ, not the judgment.
 However there were irregularities in the procedure in the RTC such as
o The insistence on filing of an Answer was inappropriate. It is the Return that
serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of
Amparo.
o The holding of a hearing on the main case prior to the issuance of the writ and the
filing of a Return is wrongful, since without a Return, the issues could not have
been properly joined.
o Also there was an error of the court when it required a memorandum in lieu of a
responsive pleading
 The privilege of the Writ of Amparo is different from the actual order called the Writ of
Amparo
 The judgment should detail the required acts from the respondents that will mitigate, if
not totally eradicate, the violation of or the threat to the petitioner’s life, liberty or
security.
 A judgment which simply grants the “privilege of the writ” cannot be executed.
 In this case a Petition for Review is not the proper remedy; while a Petition for Certiorari
is prohibited.
 However, dismissing the present petition will cause grave injustice to the parties
involved.
o The rules can be suspended on the following grounds:
  matters of life, liberty, honor or property,
 the existence of special or compelling circumstances,
 the merits of the case,
 a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party
favored by the suspension of the rules,
 a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
dilatory, and
 the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
 Procedural rules in this case may be relaxed.