Assignment on Sept 17 in Admin Law

IV. 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

Facts: 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 brought to latter’s 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 principal’s 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. 807”and 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) Issue: 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. Held: 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, 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 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 rights; (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 facilities; (5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights; (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; and (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. 26 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.

Facts:

3. NAPOCOR vs. Hon. Al onzo-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, attorney’s 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 Tribunal’s decision. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, this present peti tion. Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the decision of the CIAC. Held: No. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because

Facts: 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. NPC’s 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 court’s decision. hence, this peti tion. Issue: Whether

Held: Issue:

Held: Arbitral decision accord respect and finality by the Court. 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

Facts: 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 o r body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question.