The Court held that the issuance and enforcement of the questioned joint circulars by the Secretaries of DBM, CSC and DOH were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative and administrative functions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, but these remedies can only be invoked against bodies exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, not legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Therefore, the petition was not the appropriate remedy in this case.
The Court held that the issuance and enforcement of the questioned joint circulars by the Secretaries of DBM, CSC and DOH were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative and administrative functions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, but these remedies can only be invoked against bodies exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, not legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Therefore, the petition was not the appropriate remedy in this case.
The Court held that the issuance and enforcement of the questioned joint circulars by the Secretaries of DBM, CSC and DOH were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative and administrative functions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, but these remedies can only be invoked against bodies exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, not legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Therefore, the petition was not the appropriate remedy in this case.
The Court held that the issuance and enforcement of the questioned joint circulars by the Secretaries of DBM, CSC and DOH were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative and administrative functions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, but these remedies can only be invoked against bodies exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, not legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Therefore, the petition was not the appropriate remedy in this case.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
CAWAD v.
ABAD As a general compensation policy, and in line with Section
SUMMARY: DOH, in collaboration with various government agencies and health 21 of R. A. No. 7305, Hazard Pay may be granted to PHWs workers' organizations, promulgated a Revised IRR consolidating all additional and only if the nature of the duties and responsibilities of their clarificatory rules for the Magna Carta. Petitioners contend that respondents acted with positions, their actual services, and location of work expose grave abuse of discretion when they issued DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1, Series of them to great danger, occupational risks, perils of life, and 2012 and DBM-CSC Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012 which prescribe certain physical hardships; and only during periods of actual requirements on the grant of benefits that are not otherwise required by RA No. 7305. exposure to hazards and hardships. The respondent agencies question the remedies of Certiorari and Prohibition used by o 8.3 The Subsistence Allowance shall be P50for each day of actual petitioners for the assailed circulars were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative, full-time service, or P25for each day of actual part-time service. and not of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The Court held that the issuance and o 9.0 Longevity Pay (LP) enforcement by the Secretaries of the DBM, CSC and DOH of the questioned joint 9.1 Pursuant to Section 23 of R.A. No. 7305, a PHW may circulars were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative and administrative be granted LP at 5% of his/her current monthly basic salary, functions. in recognition of every 5 years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious services rendered as PHW. The grant thereof is DOCTRINE: The Court has consistently reiterated that petitions for certiorari and based on the following criteria: prohibition may be invoked only against tribunals, corporations, boards, officers, or 9.1.1 The PHW holds a position in the agency persons exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, and not against their plantilla of regular positions; and exercise of legislative or quasi-legislative functions. 9.1.2 He/She has rendered at least satisfactory Judicial functions involve the power to determine what the law is and what the performance and has not been found guilty of any legal rights of the parties are, and then undertaking to determine these administrative or criminal case within all rating questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. periods covered by the 5-year period. Quasi-judicial functions apply to the actions and discretion of public Petitioners contend that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, hold hearings, when they issued DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012 and DBM- and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action, in their CSC Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012 which prescribe certain requirements exercise of discretion of a judicial nature. on the grant of benefits that are not otherwise required by RA No. 7305. Ministerial functions are those which an officer or tribunal performs in the o Petitioners assert that the DBM-DOH Joint Circular grants the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without regard to payment of Hazard Pay only if the nature of the PHWs' duties expose the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act them to danger when RA No. 7305 does not make any qualification. done. o Said circular unduly fixes Subsistence Allowance at P50 for each day of full-time service and P25 for part-time service which are not in FACTS: accordance with prevailing circumstances determined by the Republic Act (RA) No. 7305, otherwise known as The Magna Carta of Public Secretary of Health as required by RA No. 7305. Health Workers was signed into law and public health workers (PHWs) were o Moreover, petitioners fault respondents for the premature effectivity granted allowances and benefits such as - hazard allowance, subsistence of the DBM-DOH Joint Circular which they believe should have been allowance, longevity pay, laundry allowance and remote assignment on January 29, 2012 and not on January 1, 2012. allowance. o As to the grant of Longevity Pay, petitioners posit that the same was DOH, in collaboration with various government agencies and health workers' wrongfully granted only to PHWs holding regular plantilla positions. organizations, promulgated a Revised IRR consolidating all additional and o Petitioners likewise criticize the DBM-CSC Joint Circular insofar as it clarificatory rules issued by the former Secretaries of Health dating back from withheld the Step Increment due to length of service from those who the effectivity of the Magna Carta. are already being granted Longevity Pay. As a result, petitioners DBM-CSC issued a Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012, to prescribe the rules claim that the subject circulars are void for being an undue exercise on the grant of Step Increments due to meritorious performance and Step of legislative power by administrative bodies. Increment due to length of service. Specifically, it provided that "an official or Respondent agencies question the remedies of Certiorari and employee authorized to be granted Longevity Pay under an existing law is not Prohibition used by petitioners for the assailed circulars were done in eligible for the grant of Step Increment due to length of service." the exercise of their quasi-legislative, and not of their judicial or quasi- DBM and DOH then circulated the other assailed issuance, DBM-DOH Joint judicial functions. Circular No. 1, Series of 2012, the relevant provisions of which state: o 7.0. Hazard Pay. - Hazard pay is an additional compensation for ISSUE: W/N the petition for certiorari and prohibition is the appropriate remedy performing hazardous duties and for enduring physical hardships in – NO the course of performance of duties. Certiorari as a special civil action is available only if: 1. it is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or It is likewise beyond the territory of a writ of prohibition since generally, the quasi-judicial functions; purpose of the same is to keep a lower court within the limits of its 2. the tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of channels. It affords relief against usurpation of jurisdiction by an inferior court, jurisdiction; and or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction, the inferior court transgresses the 3. there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in bounds prescribed by the law, or where there is no adequate remedy available the ordinary course of law. in the ordinary course of law. Prohibition is available only if: 1. it is directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person exercising functions, judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial; 2. the tribunal, corporation, board or person 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. The Court has consistently reiterated that petitions for certiorari and prohibition may be invoked only against tribunals, corporations, boards, officers, or persons exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, and not against their exercise of legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Judicial functions involve the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertaking to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial functions apply to the actions and discretion of public administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action, in their exercise of discretion of a judicial nature. Ministerial functions are those which an officer or tribunal performs in the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. 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 under which adverse claims are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties. Respondents did not act in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial capacity in their issuance of the assailed joint circulars. The issuance and enforcement by the Secretaries of the DBM, CSC and DOH of the questioned joint circulars were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative and administrative functions. Certiorari and prohibition do not lie against respondents' issuances. It is beyond the province of certiorari to declare the aforesaid administrative issuances illegal because petitions for certiorari seek solely to correct defects in jurisdiction, and not to correct just any error committed by a court, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions unless such court, board, or officer thereby acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.