Section 1, Art VIII | Judicial Power

Facts:

Apellant Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a pupil in Grade 6. As school year 1964-65 was about to
end, the Committee on the Rating of Students for Honor was constituted for the purpose of
selecting honor students. Socorro Medina, Patricia Lingat and Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. were
selected to be the first, second and third honor awardees, respectively

Before graduation, Santiago, represented by his mother, (with his father as council), contested
the rankings and instituted the civil case at hand.
Petitioners alleged, among others, that:

Patricia Lingat has never been a close rival of Santiago, except in

Grade 5

Medina received summer tutorials from a teacher who consequently became their English
teacher, thus unjustly benefiting Medina

Committee was illegally constituted since the said it was composed of all grade 6 teachers in
violation of the Service Manual for Teachers of the Bureau of Public Schools, which provides
that the committee must be composed of Grade 5 and 6 teachers.

Petitioners prayed for mental and moral damages, to set aside such list of honor students, and
to enjoin respondents from formally publishing and proclaiming such list. Petition was denied
by the lower court and the graduation continued as scheduled. Appellant assails the decision of
the lower court stating that his petition states no cause of action.

RADIOWEALTH, INC. v. AGREGADO

Section 3 | Fiscal Autonomy
FACTS:
Clerk of the SC certified the purchase and installation of a Webster Tetetalk, Model 206 MA, and
Webster Telephone speakers, totaling P585
Dacanay, Chairman of the Property Requisition Committee disapproved the purchase and
installation, for being contrary to the following:
o EO 302, series of 1940, paragraph 4 (**which I cannot find, sorry)
o Policy of discontinuing open market purchases adopted by the
Cabinet in the preceding year
o Violated the requirements of EO 298, series of 1940
Petitioner Radiowealth Inc requested with the Auditor General that the payment be approved; that
the treasury warrant was in the process of issuance; that the auditor for the SC refused to countersign
it
ISSUE:
WON the courts independence is limited to the exercise of judicial functions, and does not include the
purchase of property
HELD:
NO. The Constitution secures against interference not only in the power to adjudicate, but in all things
reasonably necessary for the administration of justice.
RATIO:
Maxim of distribution of powers: The SC is independent of executive or legislative control.
Tarlac v. Gale

POWER: The judiciary has power to preserve their integrity, maintain their dignity, and to insure
effectiveness in the administration of justice.
PROVINCIAL OFFICERS: May not deprive the court of anything which is vital to their function nor
exercise discretion to escape an obligation to the court which the law lays upon them (Power to
interfere is the power to control. Power to control is the power to abrogate).
DUTY OF PROV OFFICERS:
o Furnish court room, furniture, fixtures, supplies, equipment which must be of such character as to
permit the court to exercise its functions in a reasonably effective manner (Act No 83, Sec 10);
o Provide construction or purchase or renting offices (Act No 83, Sec 13)
o IN CASE OF CONFLICT: Yield to the court
FINAL AUTHORITY OF THE COURT: Certain discretion lies with the officials but is subject to the
paramount and final authority of the court in determining what is necessary for the proper
administration of justice
o The court has power to purchase things (purchase, legal charge on the province)
1. directly or
2. by proper proceedings to compel officials to perform their duty imposed by law
With regard to acquisition of fixtures: Subject to its dependence upon Congress for appropriation, but
supreme and independent of the executive.
o The court could not maintain its independence and dignity as the Constitution intends if the
executive personally or through a subordinate could determine for the court what it should have or use
in the discharge of its functions