Santiago vs Bautista

[G.R. No. L-25024. March 30, 1970.] TEODORO C. SANTIAGO, JR. Minor, Represented by his Mother, Mrs. Angelita C. Santiago, PetitionerAppellant, v. MISS JUANITA BAUTISTA, ROSALINDA ALPAS, REBECCA MATUGAS, MILKITA INAMAC, ROMEO AGUSTIN, AIDA CAMINO, LUNA SARMAGO, AURORA LORENA, SOLEDAD FRANCISCO and MR. FLOR MARCELO, Respondents-Appellees. Facts: Petitioner Santiago was a Grade 6 student at Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City while respondent Bautista et al were teachers and members of the “Committee On The Rating Of Students For Honor of the School” where Santiago was going. The latter decided that Petitioner be given 3rd honor on graduation exercises that were thereafter set for May 31,1965 but three days before that date, represented by his parents, Santiago a minor, sought the invalidation of the ranking of honor students on the grounds that the Committee acted with grave abuse of discretion, claiming 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 now move to dismiss the petition (or being improper and for being academic. In order to resolve the motion to dismiss, the Court has carefully examined the petition to determine the sufficiency of the alleged cause of action constituting the special civil action of certiorari. The CFI thereafter ruled that the petition states no cause of action and should be, as it is hereby dismissed,on the ground that the Committee is not the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions, against which an action for certiorari may lie under Section 1 of Rule 65. Hence, this appeal. Issue: WoN the Committee exercised judicial function in this case. Ruling: No. The case defined a judicial function as an act performed by virtue of judicial powers and the exercise of a judicial function is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. In order that a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions: (1) There must be a law that gives rise to some specific right (2) Adverse claims are made under that specific right; (3) The ensuing controversy is brought before the tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine what the law is; and, (4) The tribunal, board, or officer adjudicates the respective rights of the contending parties. In the dispositive portion of the case’s decision, it said; As pointed out by appellees, however, there is nothing on record about any rule of law that 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. Worse still, this Court has not even been appraised by appellant of the pertinent provisions of the Service Manual of Teachers for Public Schools appellees allegedly violated in the composition of the committee they constituted thereunder, and, in the performance of that committee's duties.

Clearly, the power of judicial review vested upon the Judiciary is not absolute and limited only to those cases which are questions of laws and not of facts. In the same breath, the judiciary is prohibited from giving advisory opinions and is only allowed to give declaratory judgments. The former is a mere response to a legal issue posed in the abstract in advance of any actual case in which it may be presented while the latter involves parties with real conflicting legal interests 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 are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial 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 there from is brought in turn, to the tribunal or board clothed with power and authority to determine