SANTIAGO vs Bautista

SANTIAGO vs. BAUTISTA et al. G.R. No. L-25024, March 30, 1970 FACTS: Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a graduating student at Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City. Prior to the end of the school year, the said school constituted a “Committee on the Rating of Students for Honor” composed of teachers of the said school for the purpose of selecting the “honor students” of its graduating class. The above-named committee deliberated and adjudged Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as the third honor, the first and second place being obtained by his two other classmates, Socoro Medina and Patricia Liñgat. Three days before the date of graduation, the “third placer” Teodoro Santiago, Jr., represented by his mother and with his father as counsel, sought the invalidation of the “ranking of honor students” by instituting an action for certiorari, injunction and damages in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato against the above-named committee members along with the District Supervisor and the Academic Supervisor of the place. The complaint alleges grave abuse of discretions and irregularities in the selection of honor students in the said school such as the following: (a)the placing of Patricia Liñgat in the second place instead of him when in fact he had been a consistent honor student and the former had never been his close rival before except in Grade V wherein she ranked third; (b)the tutorial given by their teacher in English to the first honor during summer vacation; (c)the illegal constitution of the said committee as the same was composed of all the Grade VI teachers only, in violation of the Service Manual for Teachers of the Bureau of Public Schools which provides that the committee to select the honor students should be composed of all teachers in Grades V and VI; (d)the changing of the final ratings on their grading sheets; (e) that petitioner personally appealed the matter to the School Principal, to the District Supervisor, and to the Academic Supervisor, but said officials “passed the buck to each other” to delay his grievances, and as to appeal to higher authorities will be too late, there is no other speedy and adequate remedy under the circumstances. Respondents moved for the dismissal of the case on the grounds (1) that the action for certiorari was improper, and (2) that even assuming the propriety of the action, the question brought before the court had already become academic. The motion to dismiss was granted. ISSUE: Whether or not the action for certiorari filed by petitioner is proper. RULING: The action for certiorari is not proper. Certiorari is a special civil action instituted against any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions (Section 1, Rule 67). A judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers; the exercise of a judicial function is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court (34 C.J. 1182). In order that a special civil action of certiorari may be invoked in this jurisdiction the following circumstances must exist: (1) that there must be a specific controversy involving rights of persons or property and said controversy is brought before a tribunal, board or officer for hearing and determination of their respective rights and obligations. It is evident that the so called committee on the rating of students for honor whose actions are questioned in this case exercised neither judicial nor quasi judicial functions in the performance of its assigned task. Before

tribunal, board or officer may exercise judicial or quasi judicial acts, it must be clothed with power and authority to determine what the law is and thereupon adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties. In the instant case, there is nothing on record about any rule of law which 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.