Decision 7 G.R. No. 221139 II Rule 65, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for instances when recourse to a petition for mandamus is proper: SECTION 3. Petition for Mandamus. - When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. Rule 65, Section 3 indicates that a writ of mandamus is available in two (2) alternative situations: A writ of mandamus may issue in either of two (2) situations: first, "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station"; second, "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person . . . unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled. " 37 Petitioner asserts that, in light of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act, it was respondents' duty to desist from proceeding with the case against him. His plea for relief, therefore, falls under the first situation. For a writ of mandamus to be issued in such a situation, there must be a concurrence between: ( 1) a clear, duly established legal right pertaining to petitioner; and (2) a correlative, ministerial duty imposed by law upon respondent, which that respondent unlawfully neglects. 38 Lihaylihay v. Tan 39 scrutinized these twin requirements and their defining components: 37 3s 39 Lihaylihay v. Tan, G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2018/july2018/192223.pdf> 7 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. Id. G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2018/july2018/192223.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. I