Municipal Council of Lemery Batangas vs. Provincial Board of Batangas

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT

Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-36201

October 29, 1931

THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL O LEMER! LE MER!,, "ATANGAS, "ATANGAS, petitioner,

vs. THE PRO#INCIAL "OAR$ O "ATA "ATANGAS, #ICENTE NO"LE %&' % &' MO$ESTO CASTILLO, respondents.

Guevara, Francisco and Recto for petitioner.  Attorney-General Jaranilla for respondents.

The respondents allege and maintain that the proceedings of the provincial board of Batangas in disapproving resolution No. !, series of "#, of the municipal council of $emer%, b% means of its o&n resolution No. '!", are neither  (udicial nor nor )uasi )uasi (udicial, inasmuch as the petition petition does does not allege allege that that the board board then acted in the e*ercise of (udicial or )uasi+(udicial functions. ith reference to the signification of -(udicial functions- Corpus uris /vol. #0, page !', section !1 contains the follo&ing2 345C5A$ 63NCT57N. An act performed b% virtue of (udicial po&ers. The e*ercise of a (udicial function is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. hile it is true that, &here there is e*ercise of neither (udgment nor discretion, there is not the e*ercise of a  (udicial function, function, it is not true that that ever% function function &herein &herein (udgment (udgment and and discretion are e*ercised is a (udicial function. udicial function presupposes the use of mental processes in the determination of la& or fact, and at times involves discretion as to ho& the po&er should be used. hat is a (udicial function does not depend solel% upon the mental operation b% &hich it is performed or the importance of the act. 4ue regard must be had to the organic la& of the state and the division of po&ers of government. And &e find the follo&ing in volume , , page ', section 8!, of the same &or92 :AT ARE 345C5A$ 7R ;3A the preliminar% in(unction is hereb% affirmed, and made permanent, &ith cost against the respondent.