SANTIAGO VS BAUTISTA

G.R. No. L-25024

March 30, 1970

FACTS:
Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. is a sixth grader at the Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City scheduled
to be graduated on May 21st, 1965 with the honor rank of third place, which is disputed; that the teachers
of the school had been made respondents as they compose the "Committee on the Rating of Student for
Honor", whose grave abuse of official discretion is the subject of suit, while the other defendants were
included as Principal, District Supervisor and Academic Supervisor of the school; that Teodoro Santiago,
Jr. had been a consistent honor pupil from Grade I to Grade V of the Sero Elementary School, while Patricia
Ligat (second placer in the disputed ranking in Grade VI) had never been a close rival of petitioner before,
except in Grade V wherein she ranked third; that Santiago, Jr. had been prejudiced, while his closest rival
had been so much benefited, by the circumstance that the latter, Socorro Medina, was coached and
tutored during the summer vacation of 1964 by Mrs. Alpas who became the teacher of both pupils in
English in Grade VI, resulting in the far lead Medina obtained over the other pupil; that the committee
referred to in this case had been illegally constituted as the same was composed of all the Grade VI
teachers only, in violation of the Service Manual for Teachers of the Bureau of Public Schools which
provides that the committee to select the honor students should be composed of all teachers in Grades V
and VI.
Respondents filed a MTD claiming that the action was improper, and even assuming it was proper,
the question has become academic (because the graduation already proceeded). They also argue that
there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the teachers since the Committee on Ratings is not
a tribunal, nor board, exercising judicial functions, under Rule 65, certiorari is a remedy against judicial
function

ISSUE: WoN judicial function be exercised in this case.

RULING:
A judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers. The exercise of judicial
function is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. In order for an action for
certiorari to exist, test to determine whether a tribunal or board exercises judicial functions:
1) There must be specific controversy involving rights of persons brought before a tribunal for
hearing and determination.
2) That the tribunal must have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and render a
decision.
3) The tribunal must pertain to that branch of the sovereign which belongs to the judiciary (or at
least the not the legislative nor the executive)

It may be said that the exercise of judicial function is to determine what the law is, and what the
legal rights of parties are, with respect to a matter in controversy.

Judicial power is defined:

As authority to determine the rights of persons or property.
authority vested in some court, officer or persons to hear and determine when the rights of
persons or property or the propriety of doing an act is the subject matter of adjudication.
The power exercised by courts in hearing and determining cases before them.
 The construction of laws and the adjudication of legal rights.

The so-called Committee for Rating Honor Students are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial bodies
in the performance of its assigned task. It is necessary that there be a LAW that gives rise to some
specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the
controversy ensuring there from is brought in turn, to the tribunal or board clothed with power and
authority to determine

SALONGA vs PAO
G.R. No. L-59524
February 18, 1985

Facts: The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected right to life and liberty guaranteed by the due
process clause, alleging that no prima facie case has been established to warrant the filing of an
information for subversion against him. Petitioner asks the Court to prohibit and prevent the respondents
from using the iron arm of the law to harass, oppress, and persecute him, a member of the democratic
opposition in the Philippines.

The case roots backs to the rash of bombings which occurred in the Metro Manila area in the months of
August, September and October of 1980. Victor Burns Lovely, Jr, one of the victims of the bombing,
implicated petitioner Salonga as one of those responsible.

On December 10, 1980, the Judge Advocate General sent the petitioner a Notice of Preliminary
Investigation in People v. Benigno Aquino, Jr., et al. (which included petitioner as a co-accused), stating
that the preliminary investigation of the above-entitled case has been set at 2:30 oclock p.m. on
December 12, 1980 and that petitioner was given ten (10) days from receipt of the charge sheet and the
supporting evidence within which to file his counter-evidence. The petitioner states that up to the time
martial law was lifted on January 17, 1981, and despite assurance to the contrary, he has not received any
copies of the charges against him nor any copies of the so-called supporting evidence.

The counsel for Salonga was furnished a copy of an amended complaint signed by Gen. Prospero Olivas,
dated 12 March 1981, charging Salonga, along with 39 other accused with the violation of RA 1700, as
amended by PD 885, BP 31 and PD 1736. On 15 October 1981, the counsel for Salonga filed a motion to
dismiss the charges against Salonga for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against
him. On 2 December 1981, Judge Ernani Cruz Pano (Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Branch XVIII, Quezon City) denied the motion. On 4 January 1982, he (Pano) issued a resolution ordering
the filing of an information for violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act, as amended, against 40
people, including Salonga. The resolutions of the said judge dated 2 December 1981 and 4 January 1982
are the subject of the present petition for certiorari. It is the contention of Salonga that no prima facie
case has been established by the prosecution to justify the filing of an information against him. He states
that to sanction his further prosecution despite the lack of evidence against him would be to admit that
no rule of law exists in the Philippines today.
Issues: 1. Whether the above case still falls under an actual case

2. Whether the above case dropped by the lower court still deserves a decision from the Supreme Court

Held: 1. No. The Court had already deliberated on this case, a consensus on the Courts judgment had
been arrived at, and a draft ponencia was circulating for concurrences and separate opinions, if any, when
on January 18, 1985, respondent Judge Rodolfo Ortiz granted the motion of respondent City Fiscal Sergio
Apostol to drop the subversion case against the petitioner. Pursuant to instructions of the Minister of
Justice, the prosecution restudied its evidence and decided to seek the exclusion of petitioner Jovito
Salonga as one of the accused in the information filed under the questioned resolution.

The court is constrained by this action of the prosecution and the respondent Judge to withdraw the draft
ponencia from circulating for concurrences and signatures and to place it once again in the Courts
crowded agenda for further deliberations.

Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to warrant the filing of subversion charges is concerned, this
decision has been rendered moot and academic by the action of the prosecution.

2. Yes. Despite the SCs dismissal of the petition due to the cases moot and academic nature, it has on
several occasions rendered elaborate decisions in similar cases where mootness was clearly apparent.

The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts,
doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection
given by constitutional guarantees.

In dela Camara vs Enage (41 SCRA 1), the court ruled that:

The fact that the case is moot and academic should not preclude this Tribunal from setting forth in
language clear and unmistakable, the obligation of fidelity on the part of lower court judges to the
unequivocal command of the Constitution that excessive bail shall not be required.

In Gonzales v. Marcos (65 SCRA 624) whether or not the Cultural Center of the Philippines could validly be
created through an executive order was mooted by Presidential Decree No. 15, the Centers new charter
pursuant to the Presidents legislative powers under martial law. Nevertheless, the Court discussed the
constitutional mandate on the preservation and development of Filipino culture for national Identity.
(Article XV, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution).

In the habeas corpus case of Aquino, Jr., v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183), the fact that the petition was moot and
academic did not prevent this Court in the exercise of its symbolic function from promulgating one of the
most voluminous decisions ever printed in the Reports.