judicial case

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

(DIGESTED CASES)

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

1. SANTIAGO V. BAUTISTA

FACTS: Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a graduating student at Sero

Elementary School in Cotabato City. Prior to the end of the school

year, the said school constituted a â€œCommittee on the Rating

of Students for Honorâ€• composed of teachers of the said school

for the purpose of selecting the â€œhonor studentsâ€• of its

graduating class. The above-named committee deliberated and

adjudged Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as the third honor, the first and

second place being obtained by his two other classmates, Socoro

Medina and Patricia Liñgat. Three days before the date of

graduation, the â€œthird placerâ€• Teodoro Santiago, Jr.,

represented by his mother and with his father as counsel, sought

the invalidation of the â€œranking of honor studentsâ€• by

instituting an action for certiorari, injunction and damages in the

Court of First Instance of Cotabato against the above-named

committee members along with the District Supervisor and the

Academic Supervisor of the place. The complaint alleges grave

abuse of discretions and irregularities in the selection of honor

students in the said school such as the following: (a)the placing of

Patricia Liñgat in the second place instead of him when in fact he

had been a consistent honor student and the former had never

been his close rival before except in Grade V wherein she ranked

third; (b)the tutorial given by their teacher in English to the first

honor during summer vacation; (c)the illegal constitution of the

said committee 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; (d)the changing of the final ratings on their

grading sheets; (e) that petitioner personally appealed the matter

to the School Principal, to the District Supervisor, and to the

Academic Supervisor, but said officials â€œpassed the buck to

each otherâ€• to delay his grievances, and as to appeal to higher

authorities will be too late, there is no other speedy and adequate

remedy under the circumstances. Respondents moved for the

dismissal of the case on the grounds (1) that the action for

certiorari was improper, and (2) that even assuming the propriety

of the action, the question brought before the court had already

become academic. The motion to dismiss was granted.

ISSUE: Whether or not the action for certiorari filed by petitioner

is proper.

RULING: The action for certiorari is not proper. Certiorari is a

special civil action instituted against any tribunal, board, or officer

exercising judicial functions (Section 1, Rule 67). A judicial

function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers; the

exercise of a judicial function is the doing of something in the

nature of the action of the court (34 C.J. 1182). In order that a

special civil action of certiorari may be invoked in this jurisdiction

the following circumstances must exist: (1) that there must be a

specific controversy involving rights of persons or property and

said controversy is brought before a tribunal, board or officer for

hearing and determination of their respective rights and

obligations. It is evident that the so called committee on the

rating of students for honor whose actions are questioned in this

case exercised neither judicial nor quasi-judicial functions in the

performance of its assigned task. Before tribunal, board or officer

may exercise judicial or quasi judicial acts, it must be clothed with

power and authority to determine what the law is and thereupon

adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties. In the

instant case, there is nothing on record about any rule of law

which provides that when teachers sit down to assess the

individual merits of their pupils for purposes of rating them for

honors, such function involves the determination of what the law

is and that they are therefore automatically vested with judicial or

quasi judicial functions.

2. DAZA V. SINGSON

Tribunal and its Composition

The Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was reorganized

resulting to a political realignment in the lower house. LDP also

changed its representation in the Commission on Appointments.

They withdrew the seat occupied by Daza (LDP member) and gave

it to the new LDP member. Thereafter the chamber elected a new

set of representatives in the CoA which consisted of the original

members except Daza who was replaced by Singson. Daza

questioned such replacement.

ISSUE: Whether or not a change resulting from a political

realignment validly changes the composition of the Commission on

Appointments.

HELD: As provided in the constitution, “there should be a

Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve Senators and

twelve members of the House of Representatives elected by each

House respectively on the basis of proportional representation” of

the political parties therein, this necessarily connotes the authority

of each house of Congress to see to it that the requirement is duly

complied with. Therefore, it may take appropriate measures, not

only upon the initial organization of the Commission but also

subsequently thereto NOT the court.

3. MANTRUSTE SYSTEMS V. CA

FACTS:

MSI entered into an ³Interim Lease Agreement´ with DBP in August

26, 1986 regarding the Bay view Hotel Properties for a minimum

term of 3 months until the properties are sold by DBP. In December

1986 Proclamation 50 ordered disposition/privatization of some

Government properties including the Bay view Hotel, the

disposition of which is transferred from DBP to Asset Privatization

Trust (APT). MSI was latter notified that the lease will be

terminated to effect the disposition. MSI sent a letter notifying APT

that the Property will be available after 30 days from September

18, 1987.October 7, 1987, APT sent a letter to MSI that they are

given another 30 days from October 18, 1987 to wind up the affairs

for a smooth transition. However, on October 22, 1987, MSI sent a

letter to APT stating that in their opinion, having leased the

property for more than 1 year the agreement is long term in

character and MSI have acquired preference in buying the

property, while emphasizing that MSI has a legal lien on the

property because of its advances for the hotel operations and

repairs which amounted to P12 Million. APT answered MSI saying

that there was no agreement to that effect. The bidding took place

on November 4, 1987, but MSI did not participate. Makati-Agro

Trading and La Filipina Uy Gongco Corporation were awarded the

property as the highest bidder for P85 Million. November 22, 1987

MSI filed a complaint with injunction on awarding and transfer of

the property to the winning bidders. Trial court granted, but the CA

reversed the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether MSI as lessee has a right to retain the property pending

reimbursement of its expenses?

HELD:

No, MSI as lessee has no right to retain the property pending

reimbursement. MSI being a lessee know that the possession of the

property was temporary thereby introducing improvements and

repairs by its own risk. MSI cannot be considered a builder in good

faith for that matter because he never possessed or occupied the

said property as owner. While MSI¶s right to be reimbursed cannot

be denied, it does not have any right of retention.

The lease agreement also does not give any preferential right to

purchase the property in question, unless it was clearly stipulated.

In this case, no such stipulation was made and MSIs unjustified

failure to bid in the public bidding for the Hotel may only be

attributed or blamed to MSI.

4. MALAGA V. PENACHAOS

FACTS: The Iloilo State College of Fisheries (ISCOF) through its Pre-

qualifications, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) caused the

publication in the November 25, 26 and 28, 1988 issues of the

Western Visayas Daily an Invitation to Bid for the construction of a

Micro Laboratory Building at ISCOF. The notice announced that

the last day for the submission of pre-qualification requirements

was on December 2, 1988, and that the bids would be received

and opened on December 12, 1988 at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

Petitioners Malaga and Najarro, doing business under the name of

BE Construction and Best Built Construction, respectively,

submitted their pre-qualification documents at two o'clock in the

afternoon of December 2, 1988. Petitioner Occeana submitted

his own PRE-C1 on December 5, 1988. All three of them were not

allowed to participate in the bidding as their documents were

considered late.

On December 12, 1988, the petitioners filed a complaint with the

Iloilo RTC against the officers of PBAC for their refusal without just

cause to accept them resulting to their non-inclusion in the list of

pre-qualified bidders. They sought to the resetting of the

December 12, 1988 bidding and the acceptance of their

documents. They also asked that if the bidding had already been

conducted, the defendants be directed not to award the project

pending resolution of their complaint.

On the same date, Judge Lebaquin issued a restraining order

prohibiting PBAC from conducting the bidding and award the

project. The defendants filed a motion to lift the restraining order

on the ground that the court is prohibited from issuing such

order, preliminary injunction and preliminary mandatory

injunction in government infrastructure project under Sec. 1 of

P.D. 1818. They also contended that the preliminary injunction

had become moot and academic as it was served after the bidding

had been awarded and closed.

On January 2, 1989, the trial court lifted the restraining order and

denied the petition for preliminary injunction. It declared that the

building sought to be constructed at the ISCOF was an

infrastructure project of the government falling within the

coverage of the subject law.

ISSUE: Whether or not ISCOF is a government instrumentality

subject to the provisions of PD 1818?

RULING: The 1987 Administrative Code defines a government

instrumentality as follows:

Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government,

not integrated within the department framework, vested with

special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not

all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying

operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term

includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions, and

government-owned or controlled corporations. (Sec. 2 (5)

Introductory Provisions).

The same Code describes a chartered institution thus:

Chartered institution - refers to any agency organized or operating

under a special charter, and vested by law with functions relating

to specific constitutional policies or objectives. This term includes

the state universities and colleges, and the monetary authority of

the state. (Sec. 2 (12) Introductory Provisions).

It is clear from the above definitions that ISCOF is a chartered

institution and is therefore covered by P.D. 1818.

There are also indications in its charter that ISCOF is a

government instrumentality. First, it was created in pursuance of

the integrated fisheries development policy of the State, a priority

program of the government to effect the socio-economic life of

the nation. Second, the Treasurer of the Republic of the

Philippines shall also be the ex-officio Treasurer of the state

college with its accounts and expenses to be audited by the

Commission on Audit or its duly authorized representative. Third,

heads of bureaus and offices of the National Government are

authorized to loan or transfer to it, upon request of the president

of the state college, such apparatus, equipment, or supplies and

even the services of such employees as can be spared without

serious detriment to public service. Lastly, an additional amount

of P1.5M had been appropriated out of the funds of the National

Treasury and it was also decreed in its charter that the funds and

maintenance of the state college would henceforth be included in

the General Appropriations Law.

Nevertheless, it does not automatically follow that ISCOF is

covered by the prohibition in the said decree as there are

irregularities present surrounding the transaction that justified

the injunction issued as regards to the bidding and the award of

the project (citing the case of Datiles vs. Sucaldito).

5. PACU V. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

End of Preview - Want to read all 41 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT (DIGESTED CASES) JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 1. SANTIAGO V. BAUTISTA FACTS: Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a graduating student at Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City. Prior to the end of the school year, the said school constituted a â€œCommittee on the Rating of Students for Honorâ€ composed of teachers of the said school for the purpose of selecting the â€œhonor studentsâ€ of its graduating class. The above-named committee deliberated and adjudged Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as the third honor, the first and second place being obtained by his two other classmates, Socoro Medina and Patricia Liñgat. Three days before the date of graduation, the â€œthird placerâ€ Teodoro Santiago, Jr., represented by his mother and with his father as counsel, sought the invalidation of the â€œranking of honor studentsâ€ by instituting an action for certiorari, injunction and damages in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato against the above-named committee members along with the District Supervisor and the Academic Supervisor of the place. The complaint alleges grave abuse of discretions and irregularities in the selection of honor students in the said school such as the following: (a)the placing of Patricia Liñgat in the second place instead of him when in fact he had been a consistent honor student and the former had never been his close rival before except in Grade V wherein she ranked third; (b)the tutorial given by their teacher in E ...
Purchase document to see full attachment