Can a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition be used to disqualify a judge?

The usefulness of the petition for writ of mandate or prohibition was discussed in Pacific etc. Conference of United Methodist Church v. Superior Court (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 72, 147 Cal.Rptr. 44. There the real party in interest argued that the petitioner was not entitled to writ of mandate as the "remedy at law" was adequate, i.e., although the petitioner's attempt to disqualify the trial judge under section 170, subdivision (a)(5), had been denied, the petitioner could have utilized its peremptory challenge under section 170.6. The appellate court rejected this argument and stated in part:

"[P]olicy and sound reason dictate against requiring that a party exhaust the right to disqualify a judge peremptorily (Code Civ.Proc., 170.6) before seeking vindication of the right to disqualify a judge for cause (Code Civ.Proc., 170). Such rights are not fungible.... Section 170.6 provides for disqualification of a judge without factual proof of prejudice. As such, it provides an 'ace in the hole,' a means to disqualify a judge without the showing required by section 170, subdivision 5. Its purpose would be undercut by now requiring petitioner to exhaust, in reality forfeit, that separate and distinct right before seeking vindication of the right to disqualify a demonstrably biased judge. Such a remedy, which protects one right only at the sacrifice of another, is not adequate." (Pacific etc. Conference of United Methodist Church v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 80, 147 Cal.Rptr. 44.)