Santiago vs. Bautista

11/2/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME032
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santiago, Jr. vs. Bautista
No. L25024. March 30, 1970.

TEODORO C. SANTIAGO,JR. Minor, Represented by his
Mother, Mrs. Angelita C. Santiago, petitionerappellant, vs.
Miss
JUANITA
BAUTISTA,
ROSALINDA
ALPAS,REBECCA
MATUGAS,MILKITA
INAMAC,ROMEO AGUSTIN,
189
VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970
189
AIDA
CAMINO,LUNA
SARMAGO,AURORA
LORENA,SOLEDAD
FRANCISCO
and
MR.FLOR
MARCELO, respondentsappellees.
Remedial law Civil actions Special civil actions Certiorari
Against whom petition may be filed Committee on the rating of
students for honor is not a judicial tribunal, board or officer
against which certiorari may be filed.Committee on the ratings
of students for honor whose actions in proclaiming the honor
students of a graduating class are questioned, is not the tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial functions against which an
action for certiorari may lie under Section 1 of Rule 65.
Same Same Same Same Same Tests to determine

whether a tribunal, board or officer exercises judicial
functions.Before a tribunal, board or officer may exercise
judicial or quasijudicial 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, in
turn, before the tribunal, board or officer clothed with
power and authority to determine what that law is and
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015823eef9f36fa6a621003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/16
11/2/2016
thereupon adjudicate the respective rights of the

contending parties.
Same Same Same Same Petition must be accompanied
until copy of the judgment or order subject thereof.Failure
of petitioner to accompany his petition for certiorari with a
copy of the judgment or order subject thereof together with
copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and
pertinent thereto is fatal to his cause.
APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Cotabato. Avila, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Teodoro M. Santiago for petitionerappellant.
Ramon C. Carag for respondentsappellees.
BARREDO, J.:
Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of
Cotabato dismissing, on a motion to dismiss, its Civil Case
No. 2012for certiorari, injunction and damageson the
ground that the complaint therein states no cause of action,
and from the subsequent order of the court
190
190

a quo denying the motion for the reconsideration of the said

order of dismissal.
The record shows that at the time Civil Case No. 2012
was commenced in the court below, appellant Teodoro
Santiago, Jr. was a pupil in Grade Six at the public school
named Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City. As the
school year 19641965 was then about to end, the
Committee On The Rating Of Students For Honor was
constituted by the teachers concerned at said school for the
purpose of selecting the honor students of its graduating
class. With the school Principal, Mrs. Aurora Lorena, as
chairman, and Juanita Bautista, Rosalinda Alpas, Rebecca
Matugas, Milkita Inamac, Romeo Agustin, Aida Camino
and Luna Sarmago, as members, the abovenamed
committee deliberated and finally adjudged Socorro
Medina, Patricia Ligat and Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as
first, second and third honors, respectively. The schools
graduation exercises were thereafter set for May 21, 1965
but three days before that date, the third placer Teodoro
2/16
11/2/2016
Santiago, Jr., represented by his mother, and with his

father as counsel, sought the invalidation of the ranking of
honor students thus made, by instituting the above
mentioned civil case in the Court of First Instance of
Cotabato, against the abovenamed committee members
along with the District Supervisor and the Academic
Supervisor of the place.
The corresponding complaint filed alleged, inter alia:
that plaintiffpetitioner Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. is a sixth
grader at the Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City
scheduled to be graduated on May 21st, 1965 with the
honor rank of third place, which is disputed that the
teachers of the school had been made respondents as they
compose the Committee on the Rating of Students for
Honor, whose grave abuse of official discretion is the
subject of suit, while the other defendants were included as
Principal, District Supervisor and Academic Supervisor of
the school that Teodoro Santiago, Jr. had been a consistent
honor pupil from Grade I to Grade V of the Sero
Elementary School, while Patricia Ligat (second placer in
the disputed ranking in Grade VI) had never been a close
rival
191
VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970
191
of petitioner before, except in Grade V wherein she ranked

third that Santiago, Jr. had been prejudiced, while his
closest rival had been so much benefited, by the
circumstance that the latter, Socorro Medina, was coached
and tutored during the summer vacation of 1964 by Mrs.
Alpas who became the teacher of both pupils in English in
Grade VI resulting in the far lead Medina obtained over
the other pupil that the committee referred to in this case
had been illegally constituted 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 that
there are direct and circumstantial matters, which shall be
proven during the trial, wherein respondents have
exercised grave abuse of discretion and irregularities, such
as the changing of the final ratings, on the grading sheets
of Socorro Medina and Patricia Ligat from 80% to 85%,
and some teachers giving petitioner a starting grade of 75%
in Grade VI, which proves that there was already an
3/16
11/2/2016
intention to pull him to a much lower rank at the end of the

school year that several district examinations outside of
teachers daily units and other than periodical tests were
given, ratings in which were heavily considered in the
determination of periodical ratings, whereas according to
the
Academic
Supervisor
and
Acting
Division
Superintendent of schools of the place such district
examinations were not advisable that there was a
unanimous agreement and understanding among the
respondent teachers to insult and prejudice the second and
third honors by rating Socorro Medina with a perfect score,
which is very unnatural that the words first place in
petitioners certificate in Grade I was erased and replaced
with the words second place, which is an instance of the
unjust and discriminating abuses committed by the
respondent teachers in the disputed selection of honor
pupils they made 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
192
192

to appeal to higher authorities will be too late, there is no

other speedy and adequate remedy under the
circumstances and, that petitioner and his parents
suffered mental and moral damages in the amount of
P10,000.00. They prayed the court, among others, to set
aside the final list of honor students in Grade VI of the
Sero Elementary School for that school year 19641965,
and, during the pendency of the suit, to enjoin the
respondent teachers from officially and formally publishing
and proclaiming the said honor pupils in Grade VI in the
graduation exercises the school was scheduled to hold on
the 21st of May of that year 1965. The injunction prayed
for was denied by the lower court in its order of May 20,
1965, the said court reasoning out that the graduation
exercises were then already set on the following day, May
21, 1965, and the restraining of the same would be
shocking to the school authorities, parents, and the
community who had eagerly looked forward to the coming
of that yearly happy event. As scheduled, the graduation
exercises of the Sero Elementary School for the school year
19641965 was held on May 21, with the same protested
list of honor students.
4/16
11/2/2016
Having been required by the abovementioned order to

answer the petition within ten (10) days, respondents
moved for the dismissal of the case instead. Under date of
May 24, 1965, they filed a motion to dismiss, 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. This was opposed by petitioner.
In an order dated June 4, 1965, the motion to dismiss of
respondents was granted, the court reasoning thus:
The respondents now move to dismiss the petition for 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 pertinent portions of the petition alleging grave abuse of
discretion are found in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. These
allegations may be substantially summarized as
193
VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970
193

follows: Paragraph 3 alleges that since grades one to six, the
students closely contending for class honors were Socorro Medina,
Teodoro Santiago, Jr., Dolores Dalican and Patricia Ligat.
Socorro Medina obtained first honor thrice (grades I, V and
VI) once second honor (grade IV, and twice third place (grades II
and III).
Teodoro Santiago, Jr. obtained first place once (grade IV) four
times second place (grades I, II, III, and V) and once third place
(grade VI).
Dolores Dalican obtained twice first place (grades II, III) once
third place (grade I).
Patricia Ligat once third place (grade V) and once second
place (grade VI).
That as now ranked in the graduation Ligat is given second
place while Teodoro Santiago, Jr., is given the third place only.
This is the ranking now disputed by petitioner, Teodoro Santiago,
Jr.
Paragraph 4 alleges that Socorro Medina was tutored in the
summer of 1964 by Mrs. Rosalinda Alpas who became her English
teacher in the sixth grade that as such, Mrs. Alpas unjustly
favored Socorro against her rivals.
Paragraph 5 alleges that the teachers who composed the
committee on honor students are all grade six teachers while the
5/16
11/2/2016
Service Manual For Teachers provides that the committee shall

be composed of the teachers from the fifth and sixth grades.
Paragraph 6 alleges that there are direct and circumstantial
evidence showing the change of ratings of Socorro Medina and
Patricia Ligat from 80% to 85% and the intention to junk
petitioner to a lower rank.
Paragraph 7 alleges that the giving of district examinations
upon which ratings were partly based were not advisable.
Paragraph 8 alleges that the teachers rated Socorro Medina a
perfect pupil which is unnatural.
Paragraph 9 alleges that on the first grade certificate of the
petitioner the word First Place was erased and changed to
Second Place.
Paragraph 10 alleges that petitioner personally appealed to
the school authorities but they only passed the buck to each
other.
194
194

SECOND PARAGRAPH VIOLATED
Rule 65, Section I of the Rules of Court provides

Section 1. Petition for certiorari.When any tribunal, board, or officer
exercising judicial functions, has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling, or modifying the proceedings, as the law requires, of such
tribunal, board or officer.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the
judgment or order subject thereof, together with copies of all pleadings
and documents relevant and pertinent thereto.
It is striking, indeed, that this petition has not been accompanied by a
certified true copy of the judgment or order complained of, together with
all pleadings and documents which are relevant thereto, as required by
the second paragraph of the aforequoted rule. This violation renders the
petition extremely indefinite and uncertain. There is no written forma!
judgment or order of respondents that is submitted for revision or
correction of this Court. This violation is fatal to the petition.
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES NEGLECTED

All that the petition alleges is that the petitioner personally
appealed to the school authorities who only passed the buck to
each other. This allegation does not show that petitioner formally
6/16
11/2/2016
availed of and exhausted the administrative remedies of the

Department of Education. The petition implies that this is the
first formal complaint of petitioner against his teachers. The
administrative agencies of the Department of Education could
have investigated the grievances of the petitioner with dispatch
and give effective remedies, but petitioner negligently abandoned
them. Petitioner cannot now claim that he lacked any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy.
NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
Allegations relating to the alleged grave abuse of discretion
on the part of teachers refer to errors, mistakes, or irregularities
rather than to real grave abuse of discretion that would amount to
lack of jurisdiction. Mere commission of errors in the exercise of
jurisdiction may not be corrected by
195
VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970
195

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion, and so holds,
that the petition states no cause of action and should be, as it is
hereby dismissed.
Upon receipt of a copy of the abovequoted order, the

petitioner moved for the reconsideration thereof, but the
same proved to be futile, hence, this appeal.
Appellant here assails the holding of the lower court
that his petition states no cause of action on the grounds
discussed by the court a quo in the appealed order above
quoted(1) that the petition does not comply with the
second paragraph of Sec. 1 of Rule 65 because it has not
been accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment
or order subject thereof, together with copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto
(2) that administrative remedies were not first exhausted
and (3) that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the teachers who constituted the committee referred
to. On the other hand, appellees maintain that the court
below did not err in dismissing the case on said grounds.
Further, they argue in favor of the questioned order of
dismissal upon the additional ground that the committee
on the ratings of students for honor whose actions are here
condemned by appellant is not the tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial functions against which an
action for certiorari may lie under Section 1 of Rule 65.
7/16
11/2/2016
The last point raised by appellees deserves first

consideration, for if really the said committee of teachers
does not fall within the category of the tribunal, board, or
officer exercising judicial functions contemplated by Rule
65, further discussion of the issues raised by appellant may
no longer be necessary. To resolve this problem the
following tests may be employed:
In this jurisdiction 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
196
196

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.
Judicial action is an adjudication upon the rights of parties who in
general appear or are brought before the tribunal by notice or process,
and upon whose claims some decision or judgment is rendered. It implies
impartiality, disinterestedness, a weighing of adverse claims, and is
inconsistent with discretion on the one handfor the tribunal must
decide according to law and the rights of the partiesor with dictation on
the other for in the first instance it must exercise its own judgment
under the law, and not act under a mandate from another power. xxx The
character of its action in a given case must decide whether that action is
judicial, ministerial, or legislative, or whether it be simply that of a
public agent of the country or State, as in its varied jurisdictions it may
by turns be each. (In Re Saline County Subscription, 100 Am. Dec. 337,
338, cited in Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Georgia Public Service
Commission, 181 S. E. 836837.)
It may be said generally that the exercise of judicial function is to
determine what the law is, and what the legal rights of parties are, with
respect to a matter in controversy and whenever an officer is clothed
with that authority, and undertakes to determine those questions, he
acts judicially. (State ex rel. Board of Commissioners of St. Louis County,
et al. v. Dunn, 90 N. W. 772773.)
8/16
11/2/2016
(2) the tribunal, board or officer before whom the controversy is

brought must have the power and authority to pronounce
judgment and render a decision on the controversy construing and
applying the laws to that end.
The phrase judicial power is not capable of a precise definition which
would be applicable to all cases. The term has been variously defined as
the authority to determine the rights of persons or property by
arbitrating between adversaries in specific controversies at the instance
of a party thereto the authority exercised by that department of
government which is charged with the declaration of what the law is and
its construction so far as it is written law the authority or power vested
in the judges or in the courts the 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 belonging to or emanating from a judge as such the power
conferred upon a public officer involving the ex
197
VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970
197

ercise of judgment and discretion in the determination of questions of
right in specific cases affecting the interest of persons or property, as
distinguished from ministerial power or authority to carry out the
mandates of judicial power or the law the power exercised by courts in
hearing and determining cases before them, or some matter incidental
thereto, and of which they have jurisdiction the power of a court to
decide and pronounce a judgment the power which adjudicates upon and
protects the rights and interests of individual citizens, and to that end
construes and applies the law. Judicial power implies the construction
of laws and the adjudication of legal rights. It includes the power to hear
and determine but not everyone who may hear and determine has
judicial power. The term judicial power does not necessarily include the
power to hear and determine a matter that is not in the nature of a suit
or action between the parties. (34 C.J. 11831184.)
(3) the tribunal, board or officer must pertain to that branch of

the sovereign power which belongs to the judiciary, or at least,
which does not belong to the legislative or executive department.
x x x the distinction between legislative or ministerial functions and
judicial functions is difficult to point out. What is a judicial function does
not depend solely upon the mental operation by which it is performed or
the importance of the act. In solving this question, due regard must be
had to the organic law of the state and the division of power of
government. In the discharge of executive and legislative duties, the
exercise of discretion and judgment of the highest order is necessary, and
9/16
11/2/2016
matters of the greatest weight and importance are dealt with. It is not
enough to make a function judicial that it requires discretion,
deliberation, thought, and judgment. It must be the exercise of discretion
and judgment within that subdivision of the sovereign power which
belongs to the judiciary, or, at least, which does not belong to the
legislative or executive department. If the matter, in respect to which it is
exercised, belongs to either of the two lastnamed departments of
government, it is not judicial. As to what is judicial and what is not
seems to be better indicated by the nature of a thing, than its definition.
(Whealing & Elm Grove Railroad Co. Appt v. Town of Triadelphia, et al.,
1
4 L.R.A. (N. S.), pp. 321, 328329.) [Italics supplied]

______________
1
Ruperto vs. Torres, et al., L8785, February 25, 1957, (Unreported).

198
198

WHAT ARE JUDICIAL OR QUASI JUDICIAL ACTS. It is

difficult, if not impossible, precisely to define what are judicial or
quasi judicial acts, and there is considerable conflict in the
decisions in regard thereto, in connection with the law as to the
right to a writ of certiorari. It is clear, however, that it is the
nature of the act to be performed, rather than of the office, board,
or body which performs it, that determines whether or not it is the
discharge of a judicial or quasijudicial function. It is not
essential that the proceedings should be strictly and technically
judicial, in the sense in which that word is used when applied to
courts of justice, but it is sufficient if they are quasi judicial. It is
enough if the officers act judicially in making their decision,
whatever may be their public character, x x x.
In State ex rel. Board of Commrs. Vs. Dunn (86 Minn. 301,
304), the following statements were made:
The precise line of demarkation between what are judicial and what are
administrative or ministerial functions is often difficult to determine. The
exercise of judicial functions may involve the performance of legisla tive
or administrative duties, and the performance of administrative or
ministerial duties, may, in a measure, involve the exercise of judicial
functions. It may be said generally that the exercise of judicial functions
is to determine what the law is, and what the legal rights of parties are,
with respect to a matter in controversy and whenever an officer is
clothed with that authority, and undertakes to determine those
2
questions, he acts judicially.
10/16
11/2/2016
It is evident, upon the foregoing authorities, 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. From the abovequoted portions of the
decisions cited, it will be gleaned that 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, in turn, before the tribunal,
board or officer clothed with power and author
_______________
2
Municipal Council of Lemery vs. Provincial Board of Batangas, 56
Phil. 260, 268.

199
VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970
199
ity to determine what that law is and thereupon adjudicate

the respective rights
of the contending parties. As pointed
3
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
committees duties.
At any rate, the situation brought before Us in this case,
tho seemingly one of first impression, is not without
substantial
parallel. In the case of Felipe vs. Leuterio, etc.,
4
et al., the issue presented for determination was whether
or not the courts have the authority to reverse the award of
the board of judges of an oratorical contest, and this Court
declared that the judiciary has no power to reverse the
award of the board of judges of that contest and, for that
matter, it would not interfere in literary contests, beauty
contests and similar competitions. It was reasoned out
thus:
11/16
11/2/2016
For more than thirty years oratorical tilts have been held
periodically by schools and colleges in this islands. Intercollegiate
oratorical competitions are of more recent origin. Members of this
court have taken part in them either as contestants in their school
days (In the College of Law, UP. annual oratorical contest, first
prize was awarded to Justice Montemayor in 1914 and to Justice
Labrador in 1916), or as mem bers of the board of judges
afterwards. They know some few verdicts did not reflect the
audiences preference and that errors have sometimes been
ascribed to the award of the judges. Yet no party ever presumed
to invoke judicial intervention for it is unwritten law in such
contests that the boards decision is final and unappealable.
________________
3
See pp. 56, Brief for Appellees.
91 Phil. 482 (May 30, 1952).

200
200

Like the ancient tournaments of the Sword, these tournaments of

the Word apply the highest tenets of sportsmanship: finality of
referees verdict. No alibis, no murmurs of protest. The
participants are supposed to join the competition to contribute to
its success by striving their utmost: the prizes are secondary.
No rights to the prizes may be asserted by the contestants,
because theirs was merely the privilege to compete for the prize,
and that privilege did not ripen into a demandable right unless
and until they were proclaimed winners of the competition by the
appointed arbiters or referees or judges.
Incidentally, these school activities have been imported from
the United States. We found in American jurisprudence no
litigation questioning the determination of the board of judges.
Now, the fact that a particular action has had no precedent
during a long period affords some reason for doubting the
existence of the right sought to be enforced, especially where
occasion for its assertion must have often arisen and courts are
cautious before allowing it, being loath to establish a new legal
principle not in harmony with the generally accepted views
thereon. (See C.J.S. Vol. 1, p.1012.)
We observe that in assuming jurisdiction over the matter, the
respondent judge reasoned out that where there is a wrong there
is a remedy and that courts of first instance are courts of general
jurisdiction.
12/16
11/2/2016
The flaw in his reasoning lies in the assumption that Imperial

suffered some wrong at the hands of the board of judges. If at all,
there was error on the part of one judge, at most. Error and wrong
do not mean the same thing. Wrong as used in the aforesaid
principle is the deprivation or violation of a right. As stated
before, a contestant has no right to the prize unless and until he
or she is declared winner by the board of referees or judges.
Granting that Imperial suffered some loss or injury, yet in law
there are instances of damnum absque injuria. This is one of
them. If fraud or malice had been proven, it would be a different
proposition. But then her action should be directed against the
individual judge or judges who fraudulently or maliciously injured
her. Not against the other judges.
But even were We to assume for the moment, as the court

below apparently did, that judicial intervention might be
sought in cases of this nature, still, We are inclined to
sustain the order of dismissal appealed from for
201
VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970
201
failure on the part of appellant to comply with the

requirements of Section 1 of Rule 65. To be sure, the lower
courts holding that appellants failure to accompany his
petition with a copy of the judgment or order subject
thereof together with copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto is fatal to his cause is
supported not only by the provision of that Rule but by
precedents as well. In5 the case of Alajar, et al. vs. Court of
Industrial Relations, where it was claimed by therein
petitioners that the respondent court had acted with grave
abuse of discretion in estimating certain rice harvests
involved in the case in terms of cavans instead of cans,
allegedly in complete disregard of the decision of the Court
of First Instance of Batangas in Expropriation Proceedings
6
No. 84 and of this Court in G.R. No. L6191, and in
ordering thereafter the division of the said rice harvests on
the ratio of 7030 in favor of the tenants, this Court denied
the petition for certiorari on the ground, among others, of
failure on the part of said petitioners to attach to their
petition copies of the decisions allegedly violated. Speaking
thru Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes then, this Court held:
The petition is patently without merit. In the first place, it is not
even sufficient in form and substance to justify the issuance of the
13/16
11/2/2016
writ of certiorari prayed for. It charges that the Court of

Industrial Relations abused its discretion in disregarding the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas in
Expropriation Proceedings No. 84 and of this Court in G. R. No. L
6191 yet it does not attach to the petition the decisions allegedly
violated by the Court below and point out which particular
portion or portions thereof have been disregarded by the
respondent Court.
The same principle was applied in the more recent

case of
7
NAWASA vs. Municipality of Libmanan, et al., wherein
this Court dismissed (by Resolution) the petition for
certiorari and mandamus filed by the National Waterworks
________________
5
G.R. Nos. L8174 and L828086, October 8, 1955, 97 Phil. 675.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Baylosis, et al., 96 Phil. 461.
L27197, May 31, 1967, 20 SCRA 337.

202
202

and Sewerage Authority against the Court of First Instance of

Camarines Sur, and the municipality of Libmanan. In the
following language, this Court emphasized the importance of
complying with the said requirement of Rule 65:
While paragraph 3 of the petition speaks of the complaint filed
by the respondent municipality with the respondent court for
recovery of property with damages (Civil Case No. L161) no copy
thereof is attached to the petition.
Similarly, paragraph 4 of the petition mentions the decision
rendered by the respondent court on December 10, 1965, but no
copy thereof is attached to the petition.
Again, paragraph 5 of the petition speaks of the order of
default entered by the respondent court and of the motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner in the case abovementioned,
but no copy of the order of default is attached to the petition.
Bearing in mind that the petition under consideration was
filed for the purpose of enjoining the respondent court from
executing the decision rendered in Civil Case No. L161, the
importance of the missing pleadings is obvious.
Moreover, the petition is also for the purpose of securing an
order commanding the respondent court to approve either the
original or the amended record on appeal filed by petitioner, but
no copy of either is attached to its petition.
14/16
11/2/2016
In view of the foregoing, the petition under consideration is

dismissed.
It might be true, as pointed out by appellant, that he

received a copy of the programme of the graduation
exercises held by the Sero Elementary School in the
morning of the very day of that graduation exercises,
implying that he could not have attached then a copy
thereof (to show the decision of the committee of teachers
in the ranking of students complained of) to his petition.
The stubborn fact remains, however, that appellant had
known of such decision of the said committee of teachers
much earlier, as shown by the circumstance that according
to him, even before the filing of his petition with the lower
court on the 19th of May, 1965, he had personally appealed
the said committees decision with various higher
203
VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970
203
authorities of the abovenamed school, who merely passed

the buck to each other. Moreover, appellant mentions in his
petition various other documents or papers as the Service
Manual for Teachers allegedly violated by appellees in the
constitution of their committee altered grading sheets and
erasures in his Grade I certificatewhich appellant never
bothered to attach to his petition. There could be no doubt
then that he miserably failed to comply with the
requirement of Rule 65 abovementioned. With this
conclusion, it is no longer necessary to pass upon the other
two errors assigned by appellant.
FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the
judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
appellant.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Villamor, JJ.,
concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes.Certiorari not available against bodies not
exercising judicial functions.A special civil action of
certiorari would not lie to challenge action of the Integrity
Board set up by Executive Order No. 318 of May 25, 1950
because that board, like the later Presidential Complaints
and Action Commission, was not invested with judicial
15/16
11/2/2016
functions but only with power to investigate charges of

graft and corruption in office and to submit the record,
together with findings and recommendations, to the
President (Ruperto v. Torres, L8785, Feb. 25, 1957).
Certiorari will not lie against the Secretary of Labor in
behalf of a labor union on charges that, by permitting
registration of certain other unions, he will cause the death
of petitioner union, as the Secretary is not exercising a
judicial function in registering unions, and they cannot be
denied registration except for reasons stated in Sec. 2 of
Commonwealth Act No. 213. (Drillo vs. Buklatan, L2213,
Oct. 14, 1950, 48 O.G. 595).
204
204

People vs. Villanueva
But certiorari was allowed with respect to an essay contest

sponsored by Philippines International Fair, Inc. and
several newspapers under definite printed rules and
involving a prize of P500 and incidental honors
(Philippines International Fair, Inc. v. Ibaez, L6448, Feb.
25, 1954). In this case, a complaint was filed by a runner
up in the judging, based on the theory that there was an
offer and acceptance resulting in a contractual situation in
consideration of which plaintiff submitted his essay, which
complied with all the rules but the judges violated the
contract by awarding the prize to an essay by another
which failed to comply with the rules. The complaint was
considered sufficient, if proved, to establish actionable
wrong by the judges. Wherefore, it was error to dismiss it
for want of jurisdiction (Philippines International Fair, Inc.
v. Ibaez, supra).
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
16/16

Santiago vs. Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago vs. Bautista

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago vs. Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/2/2016

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. L25024. March 30, 1970.

VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970

Santiago, Jr. vs. Bautista

Same Same Same Same Same Tests to determine

thereupon adjudicate the respective rights of the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

a quo denying the motion for the reconsideration of the said

Santiago, Jr., represented by his mother, and with his

VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970

Santiago, Jr. vs. Bautista

of petitioner before, except in Grade V wherein she ranked

intention to pull him to a much lower rank at the end of the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

to appeal to higher authorities will be too late, there is no

Having been required by the abovementioned order to

VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970

Santiago, Jr. vs. Bautista

Service Manual For Teachers provides that the committee shall

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rule 65, Section I of the Rules of Court provides

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES NEGLECTED

availed of and exhausted the administrative remedies of the

VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970

Santiago, Jr. vs. Bautista

Upon receipt of a copy of the abovequoted order, the

The last point raised by appellees deserves first

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

be a specific controversy involving rights of persons or property

(2) the tribunal, board or officer before whom the controversy is

VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970

Santiago, Jr. vs. Bautista

(3) the tribunal, board or officer must pertain to that branch of

4 L.R.A. (N. S.), pp. 321, 328329.) [Italics supplied]

Ruperto vs. Torres, et al., L8785, February 25, 1957, (Unreported).

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHAT ARE JUDICIAL OR QUASI JUDICIAL ACTS. It is

questions, he acts judicially.

It is evident, upon the foregoing authorities, that the so

Municipal Council of Lemery vs. Provincial Board of Batangas, 56

Phil. 260, 268.

VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970

Santiago, Jr. vs. Bautista

ity to determine what that law is and thereupon adjudicate

See pp. 56, Brief for Appellees.

91 Phil. 482 (May 30, 1952).

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Like the ancient tournaments of the Sword, these tournaments of

The flaw in his reasoning lies in the assumption that Imperial

But even were We to assume for the moment, as the court

VOL. 32, MARCH 30, 1970

Santiago, Jr. vs. Bautista

failure on the part of appellant to comply with the

writ of certiorari prayed for. It charges that the Court of

The same principle was applied in the more recent

G.R. Nos. L8174 and L828086, October 8, 1955, 97 Phil. 675.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Baylosis, et al., 96 Phil. 461.

L27197, May 31, 1967, 20 SCRA 337.