You are on page 1of 5


Quasi-Judicial Power
It is the power to hear and determine, or ascertain facts
in the enforcement and administration of law.
A. Cases:
1. Carino vs. Commission on Human Rights
Some 800 public school teachers, among them
members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association
(MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook
what they described as mass concerted actions to dramatize
and highlight their plight resulting from the alleged failure of
the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and
again been brought to latters attention. Among those who
took part were the eight (8) private respondents herein. For
failure to heed the return-to-work order, the CHR complainants
were administratively charged on the basis of the principals
report and given five (5) days to answer the charges. They were
also preventively suspended for (90) days pursuant to Section
41 of P.D. 807and temporarily replaced. An investigation
committee was consequently formed to hear the charges in
accordance with P.D. 807.
From the decision of Sec. Carino, he dismissed from the
service Mr. Apolinario Esber and suspended Babara, Budoy and
del Castillo for 9 months. In the meantime MPSTA filed a
petition for certiorari before the RTC of Manila against the
petitioner but was dismissed. Later, the MPSTA went to SC (on
certiorari, in an attempt to nullify and dismissal, grounded on
the ) alleged violation of the striking teachers right to due
process and peaceable assembly. The ACT also filed a similar
petition before the SC. In the meantime, too, the respondent

teachers submitted sworn statements to the Commission on

Human Rights to complain that while they were participating in
peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of their
replacements as teachers, allegedly without notice and
consequently for reasons completely unknown to them. Hence,
the CHR sent a subpoena to Sec. Carino. Through the Office of
the Solicitor General, Secretary Carino sought and was granted
leave to file a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that
the complaint states no cause of action and the CHR has no
jurisdiction but was denied by the CHR. Hence, petitioner herein
(Sec. Carino)
Whether the CHR has jurisdiction or adjudicatory
powers to try and decide, or hear and determine, certain
specific type of cases, like alleged human rights and violations
involving civil or political rights.
No. The Court declares the Commission on Human
Rights to have no such power; and that it was not meant by the
fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in
this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of
the latter.
The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way
of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive
evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human
rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact
finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial
function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or
official. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining
therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function,

properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of

receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a
controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying
the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the
controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively,
finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of
review as may be provided by law. 21 This function, to repeat,
the Commission does not have.
The Commission was created by the 1987 Constitution
as an independent office. 23 Upon its constitution, it succeeded
and superseded the Presidential Committee on Human Rights
existing at the time of the effectivity of the Constitution. 24 Its
powers and functions are the following 25
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all
forms of human rights violations involving civil and political
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and
cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the
Rules of Court;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of
human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as
Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures
and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human
rights have been violated or need protection;
(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention
(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and
information to enhance respect for the primacy of human
(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote
human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of
violations of human rights, or their families;
(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with
international treaty obligations on human rights;

(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose

testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence
is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any
investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or
agency in the performance of its functions;
(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law;
(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be
provided by law.
As should at once be observed, only the first of the
enumerated powers and functions bears any resemblance to
adjudication or adjudgment. The Constitution clearly and
categorically grants to the Commission the power to investigate
all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political
rights. It can exercise that power on its own initiative or on
complaint of any person. It may exercise that power pursuant to
such rules of procedure as it may adopt and, in cases of
violations of said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the
Rules of Court. In the course of any investigation conducted by
it or under its authority, it may grant immunity from
prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or
convenient to determine the truth. It may also request the
assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the
performance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation
or in extending such remedy as may be required by its findings.
But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine
causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To
investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the
popular or the technical sense, these terms have well
understood and quite distinct meanings.

2. Megaworld Globus Asia, inc. vs. DSM Construction and

Development Corp.

their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally

accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.


3. NAPOCOR vs. Hon. Alonzo-Leasto

Megaworld entered into three separate contracts with

DSM Construction namely: (1) contract for architectural
finishing works; (2) contract for interior finishing works: (3)
contract for supply and installation of kitchen and cabinets and
closets. The letter of award for architectural finishing works
provides that the period for commencement and completion
shall be twelve months. However, on Feb. 21, 2000,
representatives of both parties entered into an interim agreed
whereby they agreed on a new schedule. Because of the
differences that arose from the billings, DSM Construction filed
a complaint before the CIAC for compulsory arbitration,
claiming payment etc. Megaworld filed its Anwer and made a
counter-claim for loss of profits, liquidated damages, costs of
take-over and rectification works, administration expenses,
interests, attorneys fees and cost of arbitration in the total
amount of Php 85, 869,870.28.
The Arbitral Tribunal ruled in favor of DSM
Construction. Megaworld filed a Petition for Review under Rule
43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals.
The latter affirmed Arbitral Tribunals decision. A motion for
reconsideration was also denied. Hence, this present petition.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed
the decision of the CIAC.
No. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and
quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because

NPC and FUCC entered into a contract for the
construction of power facilities. Appended with the contract is
the contract price schedule which was submitted by the
respondent during the bidding. Construction activities
commenced. In the latter part and after excavating 5.0 meters
above the plant elevation, FUCC requested NPC that it be
allowed to blast to the design grade of 495 meters above sea
level as its dozers and rippers could no longer excavate. While
blasting commenced and FUCC were discussing the propriety of
an extra work order and if such is in order, at what price should
FUCC be paid.
The technical force which review the blasting works of
FUCC recommended that FUCC be paid php 458.07 per cubic
meter as such being the price agreed upon by FUCC.
FUCC formally informed NPC that it is accepting the
proposed price.
The works in Botong area were in considerable delay.
Civil works in Botong were kept at a minimum, the entire
operation in the area completely ceased and FUCC abandoned
the project.
Several written and verbal warnings were given by NPC
to FUCC. NPCs Board of directors passed Resolution No. 94-63
approving the recommendation of President Viray to take over
the contract.
FUCC filed an action for Specific Performance and
Damages with Preliminary Injunction and TRO . the trial court
ruled in favor of FUCC. The NPC elevated the case to CA with

prayer for TRO and Preliminary Injunction and was granted.

FUCC filed before the SC a Petition for Review. Pending the
petition the FUCC and NPC entered into a Compromise
Agreement which was granted by the Court. Pursuant to the
Compromise Agreement approved by this Honorable Court, the
parties have agreed that the decision of the Arbitration Board
shall be final and executory.
Plaintiff FUCC filed a Motion for Execution while
defendant NPC filed a Motion to Vacate Award by the
Arbitration Board. The Presiding Judge rule in favor of plaintiff.
NPC went to CA but their allegation was denied and
affirmed the decision of the lower court.
Hence, this petition.

writ of preliminary injunction against respondent PRC. The

latter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the lower
court has no jurisdiction to review and enjoin the enforcement
of its resolution. In an Order, the lower court declared that it
had jurisdiction to try the case and enjoined the respondent
commission from enforcing and giving effect to Resolution No.
105 which it found to be unconstitutional. They appealed to CA
which reversed the lower courts decision. hence, this petition.


Arbitral decision accord respect and finality by the
Exemption to the rule :
1. on the ground of promissory estoppels
2. And involving a legal issue and not a factual finding.
B. Distinguished from quasi-legislative functions

Lupangco vs. CA

Herein Respondent Professional Regulation Commission
issued Resolution No. 105 as parts of its Additional Instructions
to Examinees, to all those applying for admission to take the
licensure examinations in accountancy. Hence petitioners filed a
complaint for injunction with a prayer with the issuance of a

Quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied to the action,

discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies
required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts,
hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for
their official action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature. To expound thereon, quasi-judicial adjudication would
mean a determination of rights, privileges and duties resulting
in a decision or order which applies to a specific situation . This
does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability
issued by the administrative body to implement its purely
administrative policies and functions like Resolution No. 105
which was adopted by the respondent PRC as a measure to
preserve the integrity of licensure examinations.
JURISDICTION - the competence of an office or body to act on a
given matter or decide a certain question.