1. SANTIAGO VS. BAUTISTA 32 SCRA 188 (2970) FACTS: Teodoro Santiago was a Grade 6 pupil at Sero Elem. School.

He was adjudged 3rd Honors (3rd placer). 3 days before graduation, Teodoro and his parents sought the invalidation of the ranking of honor students. They filed a CERTIORARI case against the principal and teachers who composed the committee on rating honors. They contend that the committee acted with grave abuse of official discretion because they claim that: o The 1st and 2nd placers had never been a close rival of Santiago before, except in Grade 5 only. o That Santiago was a consistent honor student from Grade 1 to 5 o that the 1st placer was coached and tutored by grade 6 teachers during the summer (gaining unfair advantage) o The committee was composed only of Grade 6 teachers. o That some teachers gave Santos a 75% with an intention to pull him to a much lower rank o That in the Honors Certificate in Grade 1, the word first place was erased and replaced with second place o That the Principal and district supervisors merely passed the buck to each other to delay his grievances. The respondents filed a MTD claiming that the action was improper, and that even assuming it was proper, the question has become academic (because the graduation already proceeded). Respondents 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 functions) ISSUE: May judicial function be exercised in this case? What is judicial power?

HELD: 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. , and 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. The phrase 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 is neither judicial nor quasijudicial 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 therefrom is brought in turn, to the tribunal or board clothed with power and authority to determine what that law is and thereupon adjudicate the respective rights of contending parties. There is nothing about any rule of law that provides for when teachers sit down to assess individual merits of their pupils for purposes of rating them for honors. Worse still, the petitioners have not presented the pertinent provisions of the Service Manual for Teachers which was allegedly violated by the Committee. The judiciary has no power to reverse the award of the board of judges. And for that matter, it would not interfere in literary contests, beauty contests, and similar competitions.

2. NOBLEJAS VS. TEEHANKEE 23 SCRA 405

FACTS: Noblejas was the commissioner of land registration. Under RA 1151, he is entitled to the same compensation, emoluments, and privileges as those of a Judge of CFI. He approved a subdivision plan covering certain areas that are in excess of those covered by the title. The Secretary of Justice, Teehankee, sent a letter to Noblejas, requiring him to explain. Noblejas answered, arguing that since he has a rank equivalent to that of a Judge, he could only be suspended and investigated in the same manner as an ordinary Judge, under the Judiciary Act. He claims that he may be investigated only by the Supreme Court Nevertheless, he was suspended by the Executive Secretary (ES) Noblejas filed this case claiming the lack of jurisdiction of the ES and his abuse of discretion.

ISSUE: Whether the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the Supreme Court (in view of his having a rank equivalent to a judge)?

HELD: NO. If the law had really intended to include the general grant of rank and privileges equivalent to Judges, the right to be investigated and be suspended or removed only by the Supreme Court, then such grant of privileges would be unconstitutional, since it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers because it would charge the Supreme Court with an administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials, simultaneously reducing pro tanto, the control of the Chief Executive over such officials. There is no inherent power in the Executive or Legislative to charge the Judiciary with administrative functions except when reasonable incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties. The judiciary cannot give decisions which are merely advisory, nor can it exercise or participate in the exercise of functions which are essentially legislative or administrative. The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required

to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administration of judicial functions. As such, RA 1151 while conferring the same privileges as those of a judge, did not include and was not intended to include, the right to demand investigation by the Supreme Court, and to be suspended or removed only upon the Courts recommendation. Said rights would be violative of the Constitution. The suspension of Noblejas by the ES valid. Also, the resolution of the consulta by a Register of Deeds is NOT a judicial function, but an administrative process. It is conclusive and binding only upon the Register of Deeds, NOT the parties themselves. Even if the resolution is appealable, it does not automatically mean that they are judicial in character. Still, the resolution of the consultas are but a minimal portion of the administrative or executive functions.

3. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 57 Phil. 600 (1932) FACTS: The case at bar relates with a petition of the Manila Electric Company (MEC, pet), requesting the members of the SC, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms upon which certain transportation companies shall be permitted to use the Pasig bridge of the MEC and the compensation to be paid to the MEC by such transportation companies. Act NO. 1446, Section 11 Relates with the legal act of the members of the SC, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to act on the petition. ISSUE: Concerns the legal right of the members of the SC, sitting as a board of arbitrators the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act in that capacity. HELD: Act 1446, Section 11 contravenes the maxims which guide the operation of a democratic government constitutionally established, and that it would be improper and illegal for the members of the SC, sitting as a board or arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act on the petition of the MEC. The decisions of the Board of Arbitration shall go through the regular court system (Trial Courts Court of Appeals SC). They will be reviewed by the lower courts and will ultimately be reviewed by themselves. The SC cannot sit as members of the Board of Arbitration because it is not within their jurisdiction to decided on cases on purely contractual situations

4. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS VS. ANG CHO KIO 33 SCRA 494 FACTS: Ang was convicted and was granted conditional pardon. He was never to return to the Philippines. In violation of his pardon, he returned. He was recommitted by order of the Executive Secretary. He filed a petition for habeas corpus. RTC denied. CA also denied it. But the CA made a recommendation that Ang may be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation abroad. The Solgen assailed this CA decision, claiming that the recommendation by the CA should not be part of the decision, because it gives the decision a political complexion, because courts are not empowered to make such recommendation, nor is it inherent or incidental in the exercise of judicial powers. The Solgen contends that allowing convicted aliens to leave the country is an act of the state exercises solely in the discretion of the Chief Executive. It is urged that the act of sending an undesirable alien out of the country is political in character, and the courts should not interfere with, nor attempt to influence, the political acts of the President. ISSUE: Whether the CA decision was proper? Can it make recommendations? HELD: NO. The case in the CA was for habeas corpus. The only issue there was whether the RTC correctly denied the petition. The CA was not called upon the review any sentence imposed upon Ang. The sentence against him had long become final and in fact, he was pardoned. The opinion should have been limited to the affirmance of the decision of the RTC, and no more. The recommendatory powers of the courts are limited to those expressly provided in the law, such as Art 5 RPC. (When an act is not punishable by law judge should report it to the executive). The CA was simply called to determine whether Ang was illegally confined or not under the Director of Prisons (for violating the pardon). It was improper for the CA justices to make a recommendation that would suggest a modification or correction of the act of the President. The matter of whether an alien who violated the law may remain or be deported is a political question that should be left entirely to the President, under the principle of separation of powers. It is not within the province of the judiciary to express an opinion, or a suggestion that would reflect on the wisdom or propriety of an action by the President, which are purely political in nature.

After all, courts are not concerned with the wisdom or morality of laws, but only in the interpretation and application of the law. Judges should refrain from expressing irrelevant opinions in their decisions which may only reflect unfavorably upon the competence and the propriety of their judicial actuations.

5. In re LAURETA 148 SCRA 382 FACTS: Maravilla Illustre wrote to the justices of the SC, complaining about the dismissal of the her case (a land dispute involving large estate) by a minute-resolution. Illustre claims that it was an unjust resolution deliberately and knowingly promulgated by the 1 st Division, that it was railroaded with such hurry beyond the limits of legal and judicial ethics. Illustre also threatened in her letter that, there is nothing fin al in this world. This case is far from finished by a long shot. She threatened that she would call for a press conference. Illustres letter basically attacks the participation of Justice Pedro Yap in the first division. It was established that Justice Yap was previously a law partner of Atty. Ordonez, now the Solgen and counsel for the opponents. The letters were referred to the SC en banc. The SC clarified that when the minute-resolution was issued, the presiding justice then was not Justice Yap but Justice Abad Santos (who was about to retire), and that Justice Yap was not aware that Atty Ordonez was the opponents counsel. It was also made clear that Justice Yap eventually inhibited himself from the case. Still, Illustre wrote letters to the other justices (Narvasa, Herrera, Cruz), again with more threats to expose the kind of judicial performance readily constituting travesty of justice. True to her threats, Illustre later filed a criminal complaint before the Tanodbayan, charging the Justices with knowingly rendering an unjust Minute Resolution. Justice Yap and Solgen Ordonez were also charged of using their influence in the First Division in rendering said Minute Resolution. Atty. LAURETA was the counsel of Illustre. He circulate copies of the complaint to the press, without any copy furnished the Court, nor the Justices charged. It was made to appear that the Justices were charged with graft and corruption. The Tanodbayan dismissed the complaint. Now, the SC is charging them with contempt. They claim that the letters were private communication, and that they did not intend to dishonor the court.

HELD: The letters formed part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire court. There is no vindictive reprisal involved here. The Courts authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer, mouthed by his client, and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession. Were not convinced that Atty Laureta had nothing to do with Ilustres letters, nor with the complaint filed with the tanodbayan. Atty Laureta repeated disparaging remarks such as undue influence, powerful influence in his pleadings. This was bolstered by the report that Laureta distributed copies of the complaint to the newspaper companies in envelopes bearing his name. He was also heard over the radio. Lastly, as Illustres lawyer, he had control of the proceedings. In short, SC resolutions are beyond investigation from other departments of the government because of separation of powers. The correctness of the SC decisions are conclusive upon other branches of government.