SANTIAGO VS BAUTISTA

Posted by kaye lee on 10:22 PM

G.R. No. L-25024 March 30, 1970 [Judicial Power]

FACTS:
Teodoro Santiago, a grade 6 pupil, was adjudged 3rd honor. 2 days before his graduation, Ted and his parents
sought the invalidation of the ranking of the honor students. They filed a Certiorari case against the principal
and teachers who composed the committee on rating honors.. Respondents filed a MTD claiming that the
action was improper, and even assuming it was proper, the question has become academic (bc the graduation
already proceeded. They also argue that there was no GADALEJ 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
Categories: Constitutional Law 1
FABIAN VS DESIERTO, AGUSTIN EN BANC
Posted by kaye lee on 11:50 AM
G.R. No. 129742. September 16, 1998 [Express Limitations to Power of Legislation; Appellate
Jurisdiction of the Court]

FACTS:
PROMAT participated in the bidding for government construction project including those under the FMED.
Later, misunderstanding and unpleasant incidents developed between the parties. Fabian tried to
terminate their relationship but Agustin refused and resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of
employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats. She eventually filed the aforementioned
administrative case against him in a letter-complaint dated July 24, 1995.

A complaint sought the dismissal of Agustin for violation of Section 19, R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act
of 1989) and Section 36 of P.D. No. 807 (Civil Service Decree), with an ancillary prayer for his preventive
suspension. The case later led to an appeal to the Ombudsman - who inhibited himself - and transferred
the case to the Deputy Ombudsman. The deputy ruled in favor of Agustin and in the order exonerated the
private respondents from the administrative charges.

Fabian elevated the case to the SC, arguing that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act
of 1989) that all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days
from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for
reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

RULING:
No. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from decisions
of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the
proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the Appellate
jurisdiction of this Court. No countervailing argument has been cogently presented to justify such
disregard of the constitutional prohibition which, as correctly explained in First Leparto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The
Court of Appeals, et al. was intended to give this Court a measure of control over cases placed under its
appellate Jurisdiction. Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate
jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court.

Categories: Constitutional Law 1