Short answer. The court renders judgment granting the relief the petitioner is entitled to. But if the petition is patently without merit or was filed manifestly for delay, the court may dismiss it and award treble costs against the petitioner and counsel, in addition to possible disciplinary sanctions on counsel.

What the law says

After the comment or other pleadings required by the court are filed, or the time for the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear the case or require the parties to submit memoranda. If, after such hearing or filing of memoranda or upon the expiration of the period for filing, the court finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render judgment for such relief to which the petitioner is entitled.

Rule 65, Section 8 — Proceedings after comment is filed. Read the full provision →

How the case moves toward decision

Once the comment or other pleadings the court requires are filed, or the time to file them has expired, the court may hear the case or instead require the parties to submit memoranda in support of their positions. The court is not required to hold an oral hearing in every instance; it may rely on the memoranda alone, or simply let the filing period lapse before proceeding. From whichever of these points it starts, the court then evaluates whether the petition's allegations are true before rendering judgment. This flexible procedure lets the court tailor how it resolves the petition to what the case actually needs, rather than forcing every certiorari petition through the same fixed evidentiary process regardless of complexity.

If the allegations turn out true

Where the court finds, after that hearing, memoranda, or expiration of the period, that the petition's allegations are true, it renders judgment granting the petitioner whatever relief he or she is entitled to. This is the ordinary, favorable outcome contemplated once a certiorari petition has been properly proven, and the judgment is tailored to the relief actually warranted by the proven allegations, not simply whatever relief the petition happened to request. The relief granted is measured by the specific injury the petition proved, whether that means annulling the challenged act, directing a particular action, or some other remedy suited to correcting the grave abuse of discretion shown.

The penalty for a meritless or dilatory petition

But the rule cuts the other way too: a petition the court finds patently without merit, or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or raising questions too unsubstantial to warrant consideration, may be dismissed, with treble costs awarded solidarily against the petitioner and counsel. Counsel may also face administrative sanctions for filing a patently dilatory and unmeritorious petition. This two-sided structure rewards a petition that actually proves its allegations while penalizing one filed merely to harass or delay the proceedings.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.