G.R.

 No.  96681  December  2,  1991   into  the  week,  with  more  teachers  joining  in  the  days  that  
followed.  3  
HON.  ISIDRO  CARIÑO,  in  his  capacity  as  Secretary  of  the  
Department  of  Education,  Culture  &  Sports,  DR.  ERLINDA   Among  those  who  took  part  in  the  "concerted  mass  actions"  
LOLARGA,  in  her  capacity  as  Superintendent  of  City  Schools   were  the  eight  (8)  private  respondents  herein,  teachers  at  the  
of  Manila,  Petitioners,  vs.  THE  COMMISSION  ON  HUMAN   Ramon  Magsaysay  High  School,  Manila,  who  had  agreed  to  
RIGHTS,  GRACIANO  BUDOY,  JULIETA  BABARAN,  ELSA   support  the  non-­‐political  demands  of  the  MPSTA.  4  
IBABAO,  HELEN  LUPO,  AMPARO  GONZALES,  LUZ  DEL  
CASTILLO,  ELSA  REYES  and  APOLINARIO  ESBER,  Respondents.   2.  For  failure  to  heed  the  return-­‐to-­‐work  order,  the  CHR  
complainants  (private  respondents)  were  administratively  
NARVASA,  J.:   charged  on  the  basis  of  the  principal's  report  and  given  five  
(5)  days  to  answer  the  charges.  They  were  also  preventively  
The  issue  raised  in  the  special  civil  action  of  certiorari  and   suspended  for  ninety  (90)  days  "pursuant  to  Section  41  of  
prohibition  at  bar,  instituted  by  the  Solicitor  General,  may  be   P.D.  807"  and  temporarily  replaced  (unmarked  CHR  Exhibits,  
formulated  as  follows:  where  the  relief  sought  from  the   Annexes  F,  G,  H).  An  investigation  committee  was  
Commission  on  Human  Rights  by  a  party  in  a  case  consists  of   consequently  formed  to  hear  the  charges  in  accordance  with  
the  review  and  reversal  or  modification  of  a  decision  or  order   P.D.  807.  5  
issued  by  a  court  of  justice  or  government  agency  or  official  
exercising  quasi-­‐judicial  functions,  may  the  Commission  take   3.  In  the  administrative  case  docketed  as  Case  No.  DECS  90-­‐
cognizance  of  the  case  and  grant  that  relief?  Stated   082  in  which  CHR  complainants  Graciano  Budoy,  Jr.,  Julieta  
otherwise,  where  a  particular  subject-­‐matter  is  placed  by  law   Babaran,  Luz  del  Castillo,  Apolinario  Esber  were,  among  
within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  or  other  government  agency   others,  named  respondents,  6  the  latter  filed  separate  
or  official  for  purposes  of  trial  and  adjudgment,  may  the   answers,  opted  for  a  formal  investigation,  and  also  moved  
Commission  on  Human  Rights  take  cognizance  of  the  same   "for  suspension  of  the  administrative  proceedings  pending  
subject-­‐matter  for  the  same  purposes  of  hearing  and   resolution  by  .  .  (the  Supreme)  Court  of  their  application  for  
adjudication?chanrobles  virtual  law  library   issuance  of  an  injunctive  writ/temporary  restraining  order."  
But  when  their  motion  for  suspension  was  denied  by  Order  
The  facts  narrated  in  the  petition  are  not  denied  by  the   dated  November  8,  1990  of  the  Investigating  Committee,  
respondents  and  are  hence  taken  as  substantially  correct  for   which  later  also  denied  their  motion  for  reconsideration  
purposes  of  ruling  on  the  legal  questions  posed  in  the  present   orally  made  at  the  hearing  of  November  14,  1990,  "the  
action.  These  facts,  1  together  with  others  involved  in  related   respondents  led  by  their  counsel  staged  a  walkout  signifying  
cases  recently  resolved  by  this  Court  2  or  otherwise   their  intent  to  boycott  the  entire  proceedings."  7  The  case  
undisputed  on  the  record,  are  hereunder  set   eventually  resulted  in  a  Decision  of  Secretary  Cariño  dated  
forth.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law  library   December  17,  1990,  rendered  after  evaluation  of  the  
evidence  as  well  as  the  answers,  affidavits  and  documents  
1.  On  September  17,  1990,  a  Monday  and  a  class  day,  some   submitted  by  the  respondents,  decreeing  dismissal  from  the  
800  public  school  teachers,  among  them  members  of  the   service  of  Apolinario  Esber  and  the  suspension  for  nine  (9)  
Manila  Public  School  Teachers  Association  (MPSTA)  and   months  of  Babaran,  Budoy  and  del  Castillo.  8  
Alliance  of  Concerned  Teachers  (ACT)  undertook  what  they  
described  as  "mass  concerted  actions"  to  "dramatize  and   4.  In  the  meantime,  the  "MPSTA  filed  a  petition  
highlight"  their  plight  resulting  from  the  alleged  failure  of  the   for  certiorari  before  the  Regional  Trial  Court  of  Manila  against  
public  authorities  to  act  upon  grievances  that  had  time  and   petitioner  (Cariño),  which  was  dismissed  (unmarked  CHR  
again  been  brought  to  the  latter's  attention.  According  to   Exhibit,  Annex  I).  Later,  the  MPSTA  went  to  the  Supreme  
them  they  had  decided  to  undertake  said  "mass  concerted   Court  (on  certiorari,  in  an  attempt  to  nullify  said  dismissal,  
actions"  after  the  protest  rally  staged  at  the  DECS  premises   grounded  on  the)  alleged  violation  of  the  striking  teachers"  
on  September  14,  1990  without  disrupting  classes  as  a  last   right  to  due  process  and  peaceable  assembly  docketed  as  
call  for  the  government  to  negotiate  the  granting  of  demands   G.R.  No.  95445,  supra.  The  ACT  also  filed  a  similar  petition  
had  elicited  no  response  from  the  Secretary  of  Education.  The   before  the  Supreme  Court  .  .  .  docketed  as  G.R.  No.  
"mass  actions"  consisted  in  staying  away  from  their  classes,   95590."  9  Both  petitions  in  this  Court  were  filed  in  behalf  of  
converging  at  the  Liwasang  Bonifacio,  gathering  in  peaceable   the  teacher  associations,  a  few  named  individuals,  and  "other  
assemblies,  etc.  Through  their  representatives,  the  teachers   teacher-­‐members  so  numerous  similarly  situated"  or  "other  
participating  in  the  mass  actions  were  served  with  an  order  of   similarly  situated  public  school  teachers  too  numerous  to  be  
the  Secretary  of  Education  to  return  to  work  in  24  hours  or   impleaded."  
face  dismissal,  and  a  memorandum  directing  the  DECS  
officials  concerned  to  initiate  dismissal  proceedings  against   5.  In  the  meantime,  too,  the  respondent  teachers  submitted  
those  who  did  not  comply  and  to  hire  their  replacements.   sworn  statements  dated  September  27,  1990  to  the  
Those  directives  notwithstanding,  the  mass  actions  continued   Commission  on  Human  Rights  to  complain  that  while  they  
were  participating  in  peaceful  mass  actions,  they  suddenly  
learned  of  their  replacements  as  teachers,  allegedly  without   suspension  for  nine  (9)  months  of  Babaran,  Budoy  and  del  
notice  and  consequently  for  reasons  completely  unknown  to   Castillo;  15  andchanrobles  virtual  law  library  
them.  10  
b)  The  joint  Resolution  of  this  Court  dated  August  6,  1991  in  
6.  Their  complaints  -­‐  and  those  of  other  teachers  also   G.R.  Nos.  95445  and  95590  dismissing  the  petitions  "without  
"ordered  suspended  by  the  .  .  .  (DECS),"  all  numbering  forty-­‐ prejudice  to  any  appeals,  if  still  timely,  that  the  individual  
two  (42)  -­‐  were  docketed  as  "Striking  Teachers  CHR  Case   petitioners  may  take  to  the  Civil  Service  Commission  on  the  
No.  90775."  In  connection  therewith  the  Commission   matters  complained  of,"  16  and  inter  alia"ruling  that  it  
scheduled  a  "dialogue"  on  October  11,  1990,  and  sent  a   was  prima  facie  lawful  for  petitioner  Cariño  to  issue  return-­‐
subpoena  to  Secretary  Cariño  requiring  his  attendance   to-­‐work  orders,  file  administrative  charges  against  
therein.  11   recalcitrants,  preventively  suspend  them,  and  issue  decision  
on  those  charges."  17chanrobles  virtual  law  library  
On  the  day  of  the  "dialogue,"  although  it  said  that  it  was  "not  
certain  whether  he  (Sec.  Cariño)  received  the  subpoena   9.  In  an  Order  dated  December  28,  1990,  respondent  
which  was  served  at  his  office,  .  .  .  (the)  Commission,  with  the   Commission  denied  Sec.  Cariño's  motion  to  dismiss  and  
Chairman  presiding,  and  Commissioners  Hesiquio  R.  Mallilin   required  him  and  Superintendent  Lolarga  "to  submit  their  
and  Narciso  C.  Monteiro,  proceeded  to  hear  the  case;"  it   counter-­‐affidavits  within  ten  (10)  days  .  .  .  (after  which)  the  
heard  the  complainants'  counsel  (a)  explain  that  his  clients   Commission  shall  proceed  to  hear  and  resolve  the  case  on  the  
had  been  "denied  due  process  and  suspended  without  formal   merits  with  or  without  respondents  counter  affidavit."  18  It  
notice,  and  unjustly,  since  they  did  not  join  the  mass  leave,"   held  that  the  "striking  teachers"  "were  denied  due  process  of  
and  (b)  expatiate  on  the  grievances  which  were  "the  cause  of   law;  .  .  .  they  should  not  have  been  replaced  without  a  chance  
the  mass  leave  of  MPSTA  teachers,  (and)  with  which  causes   to  reply  to  the  administrative  charges;"  there  had  been  a  
they  (CHR  complainants)  sympathize."  12  The  Commission   violation  of  their  civil  and  political  rights  which  the  
thereafter  issued  an  Order  13  reciting  these  facts  and  making   Commission  was  empowered  to  investigate;  and  while  
the  following  disposition:   expressing  its  "utmost  respect  to  the  Supreme  Court  .  .  .  the  
facts  before  .  .  .  (it)  are  different  from  those  in  the  case  
To  be  properly  apprised  of  the  real  facts  of  the  case  and  be   decided  by  the  Supreme  Court"  (the  reference  being  
accordingly  guided  in  its  investigation  and  resolution  of  the   unmistakably  to  this  Court's  joint  Resolution  of  August  6,  
matter,  considering  that  these  forty  two  teachers  are  now   1991  in  G.R.  Nos.  95445  and  
suspended  and  deprived  of  their  wages,  which  they  need  very   95590,  supra).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  
badly,  Secretary  Isidro  Cariño,  of  the  Department  of   law  library  
Education,  Culture  and  Sports,  Dr.  Erlinda  Lolarga,  school  
superintendent  of  Manila  and  the  Principal  of  Ramon   It  is  to  invalidate  and  set  aside  this  Order  of  December  28,  
Magsaysay  High  School,  Manila,  are  hereby  enjoined  to   1990  that  the  Solicitor  General,  in  behalf  of  petitioner  Cariño,  
appear  and  enlighten  the  Commission  en  banc  on  October  19,   has  commenced  the  present  action  ofcertiorari  and  
1990  at  11:00  A.M.  and  to  bring  with  them  any  and  all   prohibition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law  
documents  relevant  to  the  allegations  aforestated  herein  to   library  
assist  the  Commission  in  this  matter.  Otherwise,  the  
Commission  will  resolve  the  complaint  on  the  basis  of   The  Commission  on  Human  Rights  has  made  clear  its  position  
complainants'  evidence.   that  it  does  not  feel  bound  by  this  Court's  joint  Resolution  in  
G.R.  Nos.  95445  and  95590,  supra.  It  has  also  made  plain  its  
xxx  xxx  xxx   intention  "to  hear  and  resolve  the  case  (i.e.,  Striking  Teachers  
HRC  Case  No.  90-­‐775)  on  the  merits."  It  intends,  in  other  
7.  Through  the  Office  of  the  Solicitor  General,  Secretary   words,  to  try  and  decide  or  hear  and  determine,  i.e.,  exercise  
Cariño  sought  and  was  granted  leave  to  file  a  motion  to   jurisdiction  over  the  following  general  issues:chanrobles  
dismiss  the  case.  His  motion  to  dismiss  was  submitted  on   virtual  law  library  
November  14,  1990  alleging  as  grounds  therefor,  "that  the  
complaint  states  no  cause  of  action  and  that  the  CHR  has  no   1)  whether  or  not  the  striking  teachers  were  denied  due  
jurisdiction  over  the  case."  14   process,  and  just  cause  exists  for  the  imposition  of  
administrative  disciplinary  sanctions  on  them  by  their  
8.  Pending  determination  by  the  Commission  of  the  motion  to   superiors;  andchanrobles  virtual  law  library  
dismiss,  judgments  affecting  the  "striking  teachers"  were  
promulgated  in  two  (2)  cases,  as  aforestated,viz.:   2)  whether  or  not  the  grievances  which  were  "the  cause  of  
the  mass  leave  of  MPSTA  teachers,  (and)  with  which  causes  
a)  The  Decision  dated  December  l7,  1990  of  Education   they  (CHR  complainants)  sympathize,"  justify  their  mass  
Secretary  Cariño  in  Case  No.  DECS  90-­‐082,  decreeing   action  or  strike.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  
dismissal  from  the  service  of  Apolinario  Esber  and  the   law  library  
The  Commission  evidently  intends  to  itself  adjudicate,  that  is   (2)  Adopt  its  operational  guidelines  and  rules  of  procedure,  
to  say,  determine  with  character  of  finality  and  definiteness,   and  cite  for  contempt  for  violations  thereof  in  accordance  
the  same  issues  which  have  been  passed  upon  and  decided   with  the  Rules  of  Court;chanrobles  virtual  law  library  
by  the  Secretary  of  Education,  Culture  &  Sports,  subject  to  
appeal  to  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  this  Court  having  in   (3)  Provide  appropriate  legal  measures  for  the  protection  of  
fact,  as  aforementioned,  declared  that  the  teachers  affected   human  rights  of  all  persons  within  the  Philippines,  as  well  as  
may  take  appeals  to  the  Civil  Service  Commission  on  said   Filipinos  residing  abroad,  and  provide  for  preventive  
matters,  if  still  timely.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles   measures  and  legal  aid  services  to  the  underprivileged  whose  
virtual  law  library   human  rights  have  been  violated  or  need  
protection;chanrobles  virtual  law  library  
The  threshold  question  is  whether  or  not  the  Commission  on  
Human  Rights  has  the  power  under  the  Constitution  to  do  so;   (4)  Exercise  visitorial  powers  over  jails,  prisons,  or  detention  
whether  or  not,  like  a  court  of  justice,  19  or  even  a  quasi-­‐ facilities;chanrobles  virtual  law  library  
judicial  agency,  20  it  has  jurisdiction  or  adjudicatory  powers  
over,  or  the  power  to  try  and  decide,  or  hear  and  determine,   (5)  Establish  a  continuing  program  of  research,  education,  
certain  specific  type  of  cases,  like  alleged  human  rights   and  information  to  enhance  respect  for  the  primacy  of  
violations  involving  civil  or  political   human  rights;chanrobles  virtual  law  library  
rights.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law  library  
(6)  Recommend  to  the  Congress  effective  measures  to  
The  Court  declares  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights  to  have   promote  human  rights  and  to  provide  for  compensation  to  
no  such  power;  and  that  it  was  not  meant  by  the  fundamental   victims  of  violations  of  human  rights,  or  their  
law  to  be  another  court  or  quasi-­‐judicial  agency  in  this   families;chanrobles  virtual  law  library  
country,  or  duplicate  much  less  take  over  the  functions  of  the  
latter.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law  library  
(7)  Monitor  the  Philippine  Government's  compliance  with  
international  treaty  obligations  on  human  rights;chanrobles  
The  most  that  may  be  conceded  to  the  Commission  in  the   virtual  law  library  
way  of  adjudicative  power  is  that  it  may  investigate,  i.e.,  
receive  evidence  and  make  findings  of  fact  as  regards  claimed  
(8)  Grant  immunity  from  prosecution  to  any  person  whose  
human  rights  violations  involving  civil  and  political  rights.  But  
testimony  or  whose  possession  of  documents  or  other  
fact  finding  is  not  adjudication,  and  cannot  be  likened  to  
evidence  is  necessary  or  convenient  to  determine  the  truth  in  
the  judicial  function  of  a  court  of  justice,  or  even  a  quasi-­‐
any  investigation  conducted  by  it  or  under  its  
judicial  agency  or  official.  The  function  of  receiving  evidence  
authority;chanrobles  virtual  law  library  
and  ascertaining  therefrom  the  facts  of  a  controversy  is  not  a  
judicial  function,  properly  speaking.  To  be  considered  such,  
(9)  Request  the  assistance  of  any  department,  bureau,  office,  
the  faculty  of  receiving  evidence  and  making  factual  
or  agency  in  the  performance  of  its  functions;chanrobles  
conclusions  in  a  controversy  must  be  accompanied  by  the  
authority  of  applying  the  law  to  those  factual  conclusions  to   virtual  law  library  
the  end  that  the  controversy  may  be  decided  or  determined  
authoritatively,  finally  and  definitively,  subject  to  such  appeals   (10)  Appoint  its  officers  and  employees  in  accordance  with  
or  modes  of  review  as  may  be  provided  by  law.  21  This   law;  andchanrobles  virtual  law  library  
function,  to  repeat,  the  Commission  does  not  have.  22  
(11)  Perform  such  other  duties  and  functions  as  may  be  
The  proposition  is  made  clear  by  the  constitutional  provisions   provided  by  law.  
specifying  the  powers  of  the  Commission  on  Human  
Rights.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law   As  should  at  once  be  observed,  only  the  first  of  the  
library   enumerated  powers  and  functions  bears  any  resemblance  to  
adjudication  or  adjudgment.  The  Constitution  clearly  and  
The  Commission  was  created  by  the  1987  Constitution  as  an   categorically  grants  to  the  Commission  the  power  
independent  office.  23Upon  its  constitution,  it  succeeded  and   to  investigate  all  forms  of  human  rights  violations  involving  
superseded  the  Presidential  Committee  on  Human  Rights   civil  and  political  rights.  It  can  exercise  that  power  on  its  own  
existing  at  the  time  of  the  effectivity  of  the   initiative  or  on  complaint  of  any  person.  It  may  exercise  that  
Constitution.  24  Its  powers  and  functions  are  the  following  25   power  pursuant  to  such  rules  of  procedure  as  it  may  adopt  
and,  in  cases  of  violations  of  said  rules,  cite  for  contempt  in  
accordance  with  the  Rules  of  Court.  In  the  course  of  any  
(1)  Investigate,  on  its  own  or  on  complaint  by  any  party,  all  
investigation  conducted  by  it  or  under  its  authority,  it  may  
forms  of  human  rights  violations  involving  civil  and  political  
grant  immunity  from  prosecution  to  any  person  whose  
rights;chanrobles  virtual  law  library  
testimony  or  whose  possession  of  documents  or  other  
evidence  is  necessary  or  convenient  to  determine  the  truth.  It  
may  also  request  the  assistance  of  any  department,  bureau,   teachers  in  question,  initiated  and  conducted  by  the  DECS,  
office,  or  agency  in  the  performance  of  its  functions,  in  the   their  human  rights,  or  civil  or  political  rights  had  been  
conduct  of  its  investigation  or  in  extending  such  remedy  as   transgressed.  More  particularly,  the  Commission  has  no  
may  be  required  by  its  findings.  26   power  to  "resolve  on  the  merits"  the  question  of  (a)  whether  
or  not  the  mass  concerted  actions  engaged  in  by  the  teachers  
But  it  cannot  try  and  decide  cases  (or  hear  and  determine   constitute  and  are  prohibited  or  otherwise  restricted  by  law;  
causes)  as  courts  of  justice,  or  even  quasi-­‐judicial  bodies  do.   (b)  whether  or  not  the  act  of  carrying  on  and  taking  part  in  
To  investigate  is  not  to  adjudicate  or  adjudge.  Whether  in  the   those  actions,  and  the  failure  of  the  teachers  to  discontinue  
popular  or  the  technical  sense,  these  terms  have  well   those  actions,  and  return  to  their  classes  despite  the  order  to  
understood  and  quite  distinct  meanings.   this  effect  by  the  Secretary  of  Education,  constitute  
infractions  of  relevant  rules  and  regulations  warranting  
"Investigate,"  commonly  understood,  means  to  examine,   administrative  disciplinary  sanctions,  or  are  justified  by  the  
explore,  inquire  or  delve  or  probe  into,  research  on,  study.   grievances  complained  of  by  them;  and  (c)  what  where  the  
The  dictionary  definition  of  "investigate"  is  "to  observe  or   particular  acts  done  by  each  individual  teacher  and  what  
study  closely:  inquire  into  systematically.  "to  search  or  inquire   sanctions,  if  any,  may  properly  be  imposed  for  said  acts  or  
into:  .  .  .  to  subject  to  an  official  probe  .  .  .:  to  conduct  an   omissions.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law  
official  inquiry."  27  The  purpose  of  investigation,  of  course,  is   library  
to  discover,  to  find  out,  to  learn,  obtain  information.  
Nowhere  included  or  intimated  is  the  notion  of  settling,   These  are  matters  undoubtedly  and  clearly  within  the  original  
deciding  or  resolving  a  controversy  involved  in  the  facts   jurisdiction  of  the  Secretary  of  Education,  being  within  the  
inquired  into  by  application  of  the  law  to  the  facts  established   scope  of  the  disciplinary  powers  granted  to  him  under  the  
by  the  inquiry.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual   Civil  Service  Law,  and  also,  within  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  
law  library   the  Civil  Service  
Commission.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law  
The  legal  meaning  of  "investigate"  is  essentially  the  same:   library  
"(t)o  follow  up  step  by  step  by  patient  inquiry  or  observation.  
To  trace  or  track;  to  search  into;  to  examine  and  inquire  into   Indeed,  the  Secretary  of  Education  has,  as  above  narrated,  
with  care  and  accuracy;  to  find  out  by  careful  inquisition;   already  taken  cognizance  of  the  issues  and  resolved  
examination;  the  taking  of  evidence;  a  legal  inquiry;"  28  "to   them,  33  and  it  appears  that  appeals  have  been  seasonably  
inquire;  to  make  an  investigation,"  "investigation"  being  in   taken  by  the  aggrieved  parties  to  the  Civil  Service  
turn  describe  as  "(a)n  administrative  function,  the  exercise  of   Commission;  and  even  this  Court  itself  has  had  occasion  to  
which  ordinarily  does  not  require  a  hearing.  2  Am  J2d  Adm  L   pass  upon  said  issues.  34  
Sec.  257;  .  .  .  an  inquiry,  judicial  or  otherwise,  for  the  
discovery  and  collection  of  facts  concerning  a  certain  matter   Now,  it  is  quite  obvious  that  whether  or  not  the  conclusions  
or  matters."  29   reached  by  the  Secretary  of  Education  in  disciplinary  cases  
are  correct  and  are  adequately  based  on  substantial  
"Adjudicate,"  commonly  or  popularly  understood,  means  to   evidence;  whether  or  not  the  proceedings  themselves  are  
adjudge,  arbitrate,  judge,  decide,  determine,  resolve,  rule  on,   void  or  defective  in  not  having  accorded  the  respondents  due  
settle.  The  dictionary  defines  the  term  as  "to  settle  finally  (the   process;  and  whether  or  not  the  Secretary  of  Education  had  
rights  and  duties  of  the  parties  to  a  court  case)  on  the  merits   in  truth  committed  "human  rights  violations  involving  civil  
of  issues  raised:  .  .  .  to  pass  judgment  on:  settle  judicially:  .  .  .   and  political  rights,"  are  matters  which  may  be  passed  upon  
act  as  judge."  30  And  "adjudge"  means  "to  decide  or  rule   and  determined  through  a  motion  for  reconsideration  
upon  as  a  judge  or  with  judicial  or  quasi-­‐judicial  powers:  .  .  .   addressed  to  the  Secretary  Education  himself,  and  in  the  
to  award  or  grant  judicially  in  a  case  of  controversy  .  .  .  ."  31   event  of  an  adverse  verdict,  may  be  reviewed  by  the  Civil  
Service  Commission  and  eventually  the  Supreme  
In  the  legal  sense,  "adjudicate"  means:  "To  settle  in  the   Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law  library  
exercise  of  judicial  authority.  To  determine  finally.  
Synonymous  with  adjudge  in  its  strictest  sense;"  and   The  Commission  on  Human  Rights  simply  has  no  place  in  this  
"adjudge"  means:  "To  pass  on  judicially,  to  decide,  settle  or   scheme  of  things.  It  has  no  business  intruding  into  the  
decree,  or  to  sentence  or  condemn.  .  .  .  Implies  a  judicial   jurisdiction  and  functions  of  the  Education  Secretary  or  the  
determination  of  a  fact,  and  the  entry  of  a  judgment."  32   Civil  Service  Commission.  It  has  no  business  going  over  the  
same  ground  traversed  by  the  latter  and  making  its  own  
Hence  it  is  that  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights,  having   judgment  on  the  questions  involved.  This  would  accord  
merely  the  power  "to  investigate,"  cannot  and  should  not  "try   success  to  what  may  well  have  been  the  complaining  
and  resolve  on  the  merits"  (adjudicate)  the  matters  involved   teachers'  strategy  to  abort,  frustrate  or  negate  the  judgment  
in  Striking  Teachers  HRC  Case  No.  90-­‐775,  as  it  has  announced   of  the  Education  Secretary  in  the  administrative  cases  against  
it  means  to  do;  and  it  cannot  do  so  even  if  there  be  a  claim   them  which  they  anticipated  would  be  adverse  to  
that  in  the  administrative  disciplinary  proceedings  against  the   them.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law  library  
This  cannot  be  done.  It  will  not  be  permitted  to  be    
done.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles  virtual  law  library    
 
In  any  event,  the  investigation  by  the  Commission  on  Human    
Rights  would  serve  no  useful  purpose.  If  its  investigation    
should  result  in  conclusions  contrary  to  those  reached  by    
Secretary  Cariño,  it  would  have  no  power  anyway  to  reverse    
the  Secretary's  conclusions.  Reversal  thereof  can  only  by    
done  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission  and  lastly  by  this  Court.    
The  only  thing  the  Commission  can  do,  if  it  concludes  that    
Secretary  Cariño  was  in  error,  is  to  refer  the  matter  to  the    
appropriate  Government  agency  or  tribunal  for  assistance;    
that  would  be  the  Civil  Service  Commission.  35  It  cannot    
arrogate  unto  itself  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  Civil    
Service  Commission.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles    
virtual  law  library    
 
WHEREFORE,  the  petition  is  granted;  the  Order  of  December    
29,  1990  is  ANNULLED  and  SET  ASIDE,  and  the  respondent    
Commission  on  Human  Rights  and  the  Chairman  and    
Members  thereof  are  prohibited  "to  hear  and  resolve  the    
case  (i.e.,  Striking  Teachers  HRC  Case  No.  90-­‐775)  on  the    
merits."chanrobles  virtual  law  library    
 
 
SO  ORDERED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G.R. No. 116356 June 29, 1998 On November 18, 1989 defendant answered vigorously
disputing the claims of plaintiff. It assailed the
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, constitutionality of the Executive Order 1088 upon
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DAVAO PILOTS which plaintiff bases its claims; alleged that there is a
ASSOCIATION, Respondents. pending case before the Court of Appeals elevated by
the United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines
of which plaintiff is a member[;] whereas defendant is
a member of the Chamber of Maritime Industries of
the Philippine[s] which is an Intervenor in CA-G.R. SP
PANGANIBAN, J.: No. 18072; that there therefore is lis pendens by
Section 1 (e), Rule 16 of the Rules; that the subject of
In Philippine Interisland Shipping Association of the the complaint falls within the scope and authority of
Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 1 the Court, en banc, the Philippine Ports Authority by virtue of PD No. 857
ruled that Executive Order 1088 2 was not dated December 23, 1975; that Executive Order No.
unconstitutional. We adhere to said ruling in this case. 1088 is an unwarranted repeal or modification of the
Philippine Ports Authority Charter; that the fees
The Case charged by plaintiff are arbitrary and confiscatory; and
the basis of the Executive Order 1088 is offensive,
sourced from Amendment No. 6 of the 1973
This is a petition or certiorari under Rule 45, assailing Constitution and rendered inoperative by the Freedom
the Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals 4 in CA-GR CV Constitution of March 25, 1986 and the present
No. 34487 promulgated on July 18, 1994, the Constitution; and that the only agency vested by law
dispositive portion of which reads: to prescribe such rates, charges or fees for services
rendered by any private organization like the plaintiff
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision within a Port District is governed by Section 20 of PD
appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. 857. As regular patron of plaintiff, defendant has never
With costs against defendant-appellant. been remiss in paying plaintiff's claim for pilotage fees
and the present complaint under the foregoing
The Decision affirmed by Respondent Court disposed circumstances is without legal foundation. Defendant
as follows: prays that plaintiff be advised to await the final
outcome of the identical issues already elevated to and
pending before the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. SP No.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered directing the
18072. Defendant prays for an award of damages,
defendant:
attorney's fees, litigation expense and costs.

1. To pay plaintiff the sum of P602,710.04 with legal

At the Pre-Trial Conference, the only issue raised by
rate of interest commencing from the filing of the
plaintiff is whether the defendant is liable to the
complaint representing unpaid pilotage fees;
plaintiff for the money claims alleged in the complaint.

2. To pay attorney's fees in the sum of P50,000.00;

The defendant on the other hand raised the following
issues:
3. And costs.
1. Whether or not Executive Order 1088 is
SO ORDERED. constitutional;

5
Hence, this appeal. 2. Whether or not Executive Order 1088 is illegal;

The Facts 3. Whether or not the plaintiff may motu proprio and
independently of the Public Estates Authority enforce
As found by the trial court, these are the undisputed Executive Order 1088 and collect the pilotage fees
facts: prescribed thereunder;

On September 25, 1989, plaintiff [herein private 4. Assuming Executive Order 1088 is constitutional,
respondent] elevated a complaint against defendant valid and self-executory, whether or not the defendant
[herein petitioner] for sum of money and attorney's is liable; and if so, to what extent and for what
fees alleging that plaintiff had rendered pilotage particular items; and
services to defendant between January 14, 1987 to
July 22, 1989 with total unpaid fees of P703,290.18. 5. Whether or not the plaintiff is liable under the
Despite repeated demands, defendant failed to pay counterclaims (p. 102, Expediente).
and prays that the latter be directed to pay
P703,290.18 with legal rate of interest from the filing
On September 5, 1990, plaintiff presented witness
of the complaint; attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of
Capt. Felix N. Galope, in the course of which testimony
the principal obligation and such other relief.
identified among others EXHIBITS "B" to "E-2" and "J"
to "1-2" consisting of documents related to the Respondent Court also noted two other cases decided
collection of the unpaid pilotage fees; basis for such by the Court of Appeals, upholding the constitutionality
computations; Statement of Accounts; demand letter of EO 1088. 8
and official recipients of payment made.
The Issue
On September 6, 1990, Simplicio Barao, plaintiff's
Billing Clerk testified among others on the records of In sum, petitioner raises this main issue: whether
plaintiff's Captain's Certificate/Pilotage Chits and Executive Order 1088 is unconstitutional. 9
Bills/Statements of Accounts on the claims against
defendant (EXHIBITS "G" to "H-48-A") and the details
The Court's Ruling
of the outstanding accounts in favor of plaintiff. The
records show defendant raised no objection thereto
and by virtue of which all of plaintiff's documentary The petition is unmeritorious.
exhibits were admitted. (Order dated January 14,
1991, p. 277 Expediente). EO 1088 Is Valid

On March 14, 1991, defendant presented Celso Petitioner contends that EO 1088 10 is unconstitutional,
Occidental, employee of defendant shipping company, because (1) its interpretation and application are left to
in the course of which testimony submitted EXHIBITS private respondent, a private person, 11 and (2) it
"1" to "1-D" which is plaintiff's Billing Rate, both old constitutes an undue delegation of powers. Petitioner
and new with a payment of P79,585.64; and "2" to "2- insists that it should pay pilotage fees in accordance
G" representing plane ticket paid for by defendant for with and on the basis of the memorandum circulars
transportation expenses of its counsel and cost of issued by the PPA, the administrative body vested
stenographic transcripts. under PD 857 12 with the power to regulate and
prescribe pilotage fees. In assailing the
Defendant's last witness, Capt. Jose Dubouzet, Jr. and constitutionality of EO 1088, the petitioner repeatedly
a Harbor Pilot was briefly presented. 6 asks: "Is the private respondent vested with power to
interpret Executive Order No. 1088?" 13
After due trial, the trial court rendered its ruling, viz.:
The Court is not persuaded. The pertinent provisions of
EO 1088 read:
Plaintiff's evidence as to the unpaid pilotage services
due from defendant duly supported by voluminous
documentary exhibits has not been refuted nor Sec. 1. The following shall be the rate of pilotage fees
rebutted by defendant. On the contrary, when or charges based on tonnage for services rendered to
plaintiff's documentary exhibits were formally offered, both foreign and coastwise vessels:
defendant did not raise any objection thereby leaving
the documents unchallenged and undisputed. For Foreign Vessels Rate in US$ &/or its

Upon the other hand, while the records show that Peso Equivalent
defendant raised no less than five (5) issues the
evidence fails to show any proof to sustain defendant's Less than 500GT $ 30.00
posture. On the contrary, neither of defendant's two
witnesses appear to have even grazed the outer
peripheries of what could have been interesting issues 500GT to 2,500GT 43.33
with far-reaching consequences if resolved. 7
2,500GT to 5,000GT 71.33
The factual antecedents of the controversy are simple.
Petitioner insists on paying pilotage fees prescribed 5,000GT to 10,000GT 133.67
under PPA circulars. Because EO 1088 sets a higher
rate, petitioner now assails its constitutionality. 10,000GT to 15,000GT 181.67

Public Respondent's Ruling 15,000GT to 20,000GT 247.00

As stated earlier, Respondent Court of Appeals 20,000GT to 30,000GT 300.00

affirmed the trial court's decision. Respondent Court
pointed out that petitioner, during the pre-trial, limited
30,000GT to 40,000GT 416.67
the issues to whether: (1) EO C88 is unconstitutional;
(2) EO 1088 is illegal; (3) private respondent itself
may enforce and collect fees under EO 1088; and (4) 40,000GT to 60,000GT 483.33
petitioner is liable and, if EO 1088 is legal, to what
extent. It then affirmed the factual findings and 60,000GT to 80,000GT 550.00
conclusion of the trial court that petitioner "fail[ed] to
show any proof" to support its position. Parenthetically,
80,000GT to 100,000GT 616.67 It is worthy to note that E.O. NO. 1088 provides for
adjusted pilotage service rates without withdrawing the
100,000GT to 120,000GT 666.67 power of the PPA to impose, prescribe, increase or
decrease rates, charges or fees. The reason is because
E.O. No. 1088 is not meant simply to fix new pilotage
120,000GT to 130,000GT 716.67
rates. Its legislative purpose is the "rationalization of
pilotage service charges, through the imposition of
130,000GT to 140,000GT 766.67 uniform and adjusted rates for foreign and coastwise
vessels in all Philippine ports.
Over 140,000 gross tonnage $0.05 or its peso
equivalent every excess tonnage. Rate for docking and xxx xxx xxx
undocking anchorage, conduction and shifting other
related special services is equal to 100%. Pilotage
We conclude that E.O. No. 1088 is a valid statute and
services shall be compulsory in government and
that the PPA is duty bound to comply with its
private wharves or piers.
provisions. The PPA may increase the rates but it may
not decrease them below those mandated by E.O. No.
For Coastwise Vessels Regular 1088. . . . . 15

100 and under 500 gross tons P 41.70 We see no reason to depart from this ruling. The
Court's holding clearly debunks petitioner's insistence
500 and under 600 gross tons 55.60 on paying its pilotage fees based on memorandum
circulars issued by the PPA. 16 Because the PPA
600 and under 1,000 gross tons 69.60 circulars are inconsistent with EO 1088, they are void
and ineffective. "Administrative or executive acts,
orders and regulations shall be valid only when they
1,000 and under 3,000 gross tons 139.20 are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution." 17 As
stated by this Court in Land Bank of the Philippines vs.
3,000 and under 5,000 gross tons 300.00 Court of Appeals, 18 "[t]he conclusive effect of
administrative construction is not absolute. Action of
5,000 and over gross tons an administrative agency may be disturbed or set
aside by the judicial department if there is an error of
law, a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction, or
Sec. 2. With respect to foreign vessels, payment of
grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either
pilotage services shall be made in dollars or in pesos at
the letter or spirit of the law." 19 It is axiomatic that an
the prevailing exchange rate.
administrative agency, like the PPA, has no discretion
whether to implement the law or not. Its duty is to
Sec. 3. All orders, letters of instructions, rules, enforce it. Unarguably, therefore, if there is any
regulations and other issuances inconsistent with this conflict between the PPA circular and a law, such as EO
Executive Order are hereby repealed or amended 1088, the latter prevails. 20
accordingly.
Based on the foregoing, petitioner has no legal basis to
Sec. 4. This Executive Order shall take effect refuse payment of pilotage fees to private respondent,
immediately. as computed according to the rates set by EO 1088.
Private respondent cannot be faulted for relying on the
In Philippine Interisland Shipping Association of the clear and unmistakable provisions of EO 1088. In fact,
Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 14 the Supreme Court, EO 1088 leaves no room for interpretation, thereby
through Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, upheld the unmistakably showing the duplicity of petitioner's
validity and constitutionality of Executive Order 1088 query: "Is the private respondent vested with power to
in no uncertain terms. We aptly iterate our interpret Executive Order No. 10882?"
pronouncement in said case, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the
It is not an answer to say that E.O. No. 1088 should assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
not be considered a statute because that would imply Costs against petitioner.
the withdrawal of power from the PPA. What
determines whether an act is a law or an SO ORDERED.
administrative issuance is not its form but its nature.
Here as we have already said, the power to fix the
 
rates of charges for services, including pilotage
service, has always been regarded as legislative in
character.

xxx xxx xxx