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 “Committee on the Rating
of Students for Honor― composed of teachers of the said school
for the purpose of selecting the “honor students― 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 “third placer― Teodoro Santiago, Jr.,
represented by his mother and with his father as counsel, sought
the invalidation of the “ranking of honor students― 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 “passed the buck to
each other― 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