Lawyerly

GR No. 200670

2015-07-06

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where he has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.[2] Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, is "a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies x x x 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."[3] Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, 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 ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties.[4]

GR No. 167732

2012-07-11

TEAM PACIFIC CORPORATION v. JOSEPHINE DAZA IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TAGUIG

PEREZ, J.

The foregoing pronouncements notwithstanding, we find that TPC erroneously availed of the wrong remedy in filing a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to question Daza's inaction on its letter-protest. The rule is settled that, as a special civil action, certiorari is available only if the following essential requisites concur: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and, (3) there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[17] Judicial function entails the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, refers to the action and discretion of public administrative officers or bodies, which are 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.[18]

GR No. 159941

2011-08-17

HEIRS OF SPS. TEOFILO M. RETERTA AND ELISA RETERTA v. SPS. LORENZO MORES AND VIRGINIA LOPEZ

BERSAMIN, J.

Specifically, the Court has held that the availability of appeal as a remedy does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent or preclude a party from making use of certiorari if appeal is not an adequate remedy, or an equally beneficial, or speedy remedy. It is inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari.[12] A remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment, order, or resolution of the lower court or agency.[13] It is understood, then, that a litigant need not mark time by resorting to the less speedy remedy of appeal in order to have an order annulled and set aside for being patently void for failure of the trial court to comply with the Rules of Court.[14]

GR No. 174697

2010-07-08

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

BRION, J.

Judicial functions are exercised by a body or officer clothed with authority to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the matter in controversy.[27] Quasi-judicial function is a term that applies to the action or discretion of public administrative officers or bodies given the authority to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action using discretion of a judicial nature.[28] Thus, in Philnabank Employees Association v. Estanislao, we did not grant a petition for certiorari against the Department Secretary who did not act in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity but merely promulgated the questioned implementing rules under the mandate of Republic Act No. 6971, the applicable law in this cited case.[29]

GR Nos. 179431-32

2010-06-22

LUIS K. LOKIN v. COMELEC

BERSAMIN, J.

The authority to make IRRs in order to carry out an express legislative purpose, or to effect the operation and enforcement of a law is not a power exclusively legislative in character, but is rather administrative in nature. The rules and regulations adopted and promulgated must not, however, subvert or be contrary to existing statutes. The function of promulgating IRRs may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of a law. The power of administrative agencies is confined to implementing the law or putting it into effect. Corollary to this is that administrative regulation cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment. It is axiomatic that the clear letter of the law is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule issued for its implementation. Indeed, administrative or executive acts shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.[27]

GR No. 177878

2010-04-07

SPO1 LEONITO ACUZAR v. APRONIANO JOROLAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Moreover, for a special civil action for certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. [17] For sure, petitioner's bare allegation that appeal from the judgment of the Board may not be adequate does not justify immediate resort to certiorari. Moreover, the extraordinary writ of certiorari may be issued only where it is clearly shown that there is patent and gross abuse of discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. [18] Here, not only was an appeal available to petitioner as a remedy from the decision of the PLEB, petitioner also failed to sufficiently show any grave abuse of discretion of the Board which would justify his immediate resort to certiorari in lieu of an appeal.

GR No. 183335

2009-12-23

JUANITO TABIGUE v. INTERNATIONAL COPRA EXPORT CORPORATION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

A[n agency] is said to be exercising judicial function where [it] has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc. of public administrative officers or bodies, who are 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.[24] (underscoring supplied)

GR No. 180046

2009-04-02

REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA

CARPIO, J.

Administrative agencies exercise their quasi-legislative or rule-making power through the promulgation of rules and regulations.[36] The CHED may only exercise its rule-making power within the confines of its jurisdiction under RA 7722. The RIRR covers review centers and similar entities which are neither institutions of higher education nor institutions offering degree-granting programs.

GR No. 176951

2008-11-18

LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission,[77] the Court synthesized the requirements for a petition for prohibition, thus: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person exercising functions, judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial; (2) the tribunal, corporation, board, or person has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[78]

GR No. 157660

2008-08-29

ELIGIO P. MALLARI

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

First to be resolved is the issue of whether the remedy of certiorari may be availed of by petitioner in assailing the RTC Orders granting the issuance of a writ of possession. The well-trenched rule provided for in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and elucidated in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission,[4] is that:Certiorari as a special civil action is available only if the following essential requisites concur: (1) it must be directed against the tribunal, board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

GR No. 162411

2008-06-27

NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE

VELASCO JR., J.

In line with its declared policy, R.A. No. 6727 created the NWPC, vested with the power to prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination of appropriate minimum wage and productivity measures at the regional, provincial or industry levels; and authorized the RTWPB to determine and fix the minimum wage rates applicable in their respective regions, provinces, or industries therein and issue the corresponding wage orders, subject to the guidelines issued by the NWPC. Pursuant to its wage fixing authority, the RTWPB may issue wage orders which set the daily minimum wage rates, based on the standards or criteria set by Article 124 of the Labor Code.[7]

GR No. 161933

2008-04-22

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The resolution of this case has been overtaken by the execution of the parties' 2003-2005 CBA. While this would render the case moot and academic, nevertheless, the likelihood that the same issues will come up in the parties' future CBA negotiations is not far-fetched, thus compelling its resolution. Courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.[8]

	GR No. 200670 2015-07-06	CLARK INVESTORS v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where he has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.[2] Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, is "a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies x x x 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."[3] Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, 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 ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties.[4]
	GR No. 167732 2012-07-11	TEAM PACIFIC CORPORATION v. JOSEPHINE DAZA IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TAGUIG PEREZ, J.
The foregoing pronouncements notwithstanding, we find that TPC erroneously availed of the wrong remedy in filing a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to question Daza's inaction on its letter-protest. The rule is settled that, as a special civil action, certiorari is available only if the following essential requisites concur: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and, (3) there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[17] Judicial function entails the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, refers to the action and discretion of public administrative officers or bodies, which are 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.[18]
	GR No. 159941 2011-08-17	HEIRS OF SPS. TEOFILO M. RETERTA AND ELISA RETERTA v. SPS. LORENZO MORES AND VIRGINIA LOPEZ BERSAMIN, J.
Specifically, the Court has held that the availability of appeal as a remedy does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent or preclude a party from making use of certiorari if appeal is not an adequate remedy, or an equally beneficial, or speedy remedy. It is inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari.[12] A remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment, order, or resolution of the lower court or agency.[13] It is understood, then, that a litigant need not mark time by resorting to the less speedy remedy of appeal in order to have an order annulled and set aside for being patently void for failure of the trial court to comply with the Rules of Court.[14]
	GR No. 174697 2010-07-08	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION BRION, J.
Judicial functions are exercised by a body or officer clothed with authority to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the matter in controversy.[27] Quasi-judicial function is a term that applies to the action or discretion of public administrative officers or bodies given the authority to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action using discretion of a judicial nature.[28] Thus, in Philnabank Employees Association v. Estanislao, we did not grant a petition for certiorari against the Department Secretary who did not act in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity but merely promulgated the questioned implementing rules under the mandate of Republic Act No. 6971, the applicable law in this cited case.[29]
	GR Nos. 179431-32 2010-06-22	LUIS K. LOKIN v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
The authority to make IRRs in order to carry out an express legislative purpose, or to effect the operation and enforcement of a law is not a power exclusively legislative in character, but is rather administrative in nature. The rules and regulations adopted and promulgated must not, however, subvert or be contrary to existing statutes. The function of promulgating IRRs may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of a law. The power of administrative agencies is confined to implementing the law or putting it into effect. Corollary to this is that administrative regulation cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment. It is axiomatic that the clear letter of the law is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule issued for its implementation. Indeed, administrative or executive acts shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.[27]
	GR No. 177878 2010-04-07	SPO1 LEONITO ACUZAR v. APRONIANO JOROLAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Moreover, for a special civil action for certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. [17] For sure, petitioner's bare allegation that appeal from the judgment of the Board may not be adequate does not justify immediate resort to certiorari. Moreover, the extraordinary writ of certiorari may be issued only where it is clearly shown that there is patent and gross abuse of discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. [18] Here, not only was an appeal available to petitioner as a remedy from the decision of the PLEB, petitioner also failed to sufficiently show any grave abuse of discretion of the Board which would justify his immediate resort to certiorari in lieu of an appeal.
	GR No. 183335 2009-12-23	JUANITO TABIGUE v. INTERNATIONAL COPRA EXPORT CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
A[n agency] is said to be exercising judicial function where [it] has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc. of public administrative officers or bodies, who are 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.[24] (underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 180046 2009-04-02	REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA CARPIO, J.
Administrative agencies exercise their quasi-legislative or rule-making power through the promulgation of rules and regulations.[36] The CHED may only exercise its rule-making power within the confines of its jurisdiction under RA 7722. The RIRR covers review centers and similar entities which are neither institutions of higher education nor institutions offering degree-granting programs.
	GR No. 176951 2008-11-18	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission,[77] the Court synthesized the requirements for a petition for prohibition, thus: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person exercising functions, judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial; (2) the tribunal, corporation, board, or person has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[78]
	GR No. 157660 2008-08-29	ELIGIO P. MALLARI AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
First to be resolved is the issue of whether the remedy of certiorari may be availed of by petitioner in assailing the RTC Orders granting the issuance of a writ of possession. The well-trenched rule provided for in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and elucidated in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission,[4] is that:Certiorari as a special civil action is available only if the following essential requisites concur: (1) it must be directed against the tribunal, board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
	GR No. 162411 2008-06-27	NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE VELASCO JR., J.
In line with its declared policy, R.A. No. 6727 created the NWPC, vested with the power to prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination of appropriate minimum wage and productivity measures at the regional, provincial or industry levels; and authorized the RTWPB to determine and fix the minimum wage rates applicable in their respective regions, provinces, or industries therein and issue the corresponding wage orders, subject to the guidelines issued by the NWPC. Pursuant to its wage fixing authority, the RTWPB may issue wage orders which set the daily minimum wage rates, based on the standards or criteria set by Article 124 of the Labor Code.[7]
	GR No. 161933 2008-04-22	STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The resolution of this case has been overtaken by the execution of the parties' 2003-2005 CBA. While this would render the case moot and academic, nevertheless, the likelihood that the same issues will come up in the parties' future CBA negotiations is not far-fetched, thus compelling its resolution. Courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.[8]

METROPOLITAN BANK v. NATIONAL WAGES