QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER

-Power to hear and determine or ascertain facts and decide by the application of rules to the ascertained facts.

3 ELEMENTS OF ADJUDICATORY POWERS

1. Specific parties
- It involves the rights, duties, and obligations of specific individuals and persons.
2. Adjudication by person other than a judge
- Power or function that partakes of the judicial but is exercised by a person other than a judge.
3. Adjudication by agency other than a court
- Convenient way to justify exercise of judicial power by an administrative agency.

STEPS to the EXERCISE of QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER

1. Ascertain facts from pleadings and from evidence adduced.
2. Determine what the applicable law is and what are the legal rights of parties.
3. Decide controversy and render judgment thereon.

CLASSIFICATION of ADJUDICATORY POWERS

1. ENABLING
-To permit or allow something which the law undertakes to regulate.
*Grant or denial of license (business or occupation).
*Issuance of securities or certificate of public convenience.
2. DIRECTING
-To issue orders directing parties.
* Power of assessment of BIR or BOC.
-To conform to governing statutes or rules.
* Reparations under public utility laws.
*Awards under workmen's compensation laws.
3. DISPENSING
-To exempt from general prohibition; or relieve individual from affirmative duty.
*Zoning Boards - may vary provisions of zoning ordinances.
*Phil Army Acceptance Board - relieve certain person from military training.
4. SUMMARY
-To apply compulsion to effectuate legal purpose; without judicial warrant.
*Abatement of nuisance.
*Restraint or levy property of delinquent taxpayer.
5. EQUITABLE
-Power to make proper application of rules of equity.
*Cease and desist order
JURISPRUDENCE
Principle
1. Office of Public Prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial
body.
2. Prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer.
3. Not every function wherein judgement and
discretion are exercised is a judicial function.
4. Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies applies only
where the act of administrative agency was
performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions.
5. Jurisdiction to order a lessee to vacate leased
premises is vested in the civil courts in an
appropriate case for unlawful detainer or accion
publiciana..
6. Administrative body may be vested with
exclusive original jurisdiction on certain disputes
falling within its expertise.
Illustrative Cases
Pres. Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v. Court of Appeals
Cojuanco v. PCGG
Santiago v. Bautista
Smart Communications v. NTC
-In questioning the validity of RULE or REGULATION issued by an
administrative agency, party need not exhaust administrative remedies
before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of
administrative agency was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function.
Guerzon v. CA
-There is nothing in PD 1206 that would suggest that the same or similar
jurisdiction has been granted to Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU).
BEU's jurisdiction is limited to cases involving violation or non-
compliance with any term or condition of any certificate, license or permit
issued by it or of any of its orders, decisions, rules or regulations.
Antipolo Realty v. NHA
-Before tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial
acts, there should be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of
persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are
made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought, before the
tribunal, board or officer clothed with power and authority to
determine what that law is and thereupon adjudicate the respective
rights of contending parties.
Pres. Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v. Court of Appeals
FACTS:
PADS TF (created by PD 1936) - Was asked to investigate and prosecute "dollar salting" activities in the country.
Jose Rosales - State Prosecutor of PADS, issued search warrants against Karamfil Export-Import Co.
Karamfil - went to RTC-Makati to enjoin the implementation of the search warrants in question.
RTC-Makati - declared search warrants to be null and void and ordered to return all personal properties and documents seized by
virtue of said warrants.
PADS TF - Appealed to CA, which initially ruled for PADS: that PADS is special quasi-judicial body and ranks with RTCs, and that RTC
had no jurisdiction to declare search warrants null and void.
CA - Upon MR, reversed itself.
PADS TF - Resort to SC, with PADS contending that CA erred in not holding that PADS has not been granted under PD 1936 judicial
or quasi-judicial jurisdiction.

HELD:
a. PADS TF was not meant to exercise quasi-judicial functions (try and decide claims and execute its judgments).
b. As the President's arm called upon to combat "dollar salting" or the black marketing and salting of foreign exchange, it is tasked
alone by the Decree to handle the prosecution of such activities, but nothing more.

COJUANCO v. PCGG
FACTS:
PCGG (as law enforcer) - gathered evidence as to alleged ill-gotten wealth of Eduardo Cojuanco and, after satisfying itself that there
is a prima facie case, sequestered and issued freeze order for all his properties. Based also on said finding of prima facie case,
PCGG filed civil complaint against him for alleged ill-gotten wealth, including alleged misuse of coconut levy funds.
Eduardo Cojuanco - Went to SC alleging that PCGG may not conduct preliminary investigation of the complaints filed by Solicitor
General without violating his rights to due process and equal protection of the law, and that PCGG has no right to conduct such
preliminary investigation.

HELD:
a. an indispensable requisite of due process is that the person who presides and decides over a proceeding including a preliminary
investigation, must possess the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
b. while the investigating officer, strictly speaking is not a "judge," by the nature of his functions he is and must be considered to
be a quasi-judicial officer.
c. PCGG cannot possibly conduct preliminary investigation of said criminal complaints with the "cold neutrality of an impartial
judge," as it has prejudged the matter.
SANTIAGO Jr. v. BAUTISTA
FACTS:
Committee on Rating of Students for Honor - was constituted for the purpose of selecting "honor students" of its graduating class at
Sero Elem. School in Cotabato City, as school year 1964-1965 was about to end.
Teodoro Santiago, Jr. (Grade 6 pupil) - was adjudged by the Committee as 3rd honors. Three days prior to graduation, Santiago, Jr.,
represented by his mother, and with his father as counsel, sought invalidation of said "ranking" before CFI-Cotabato, against
committee members for grave abuse of discretion.
CFI-Cotabato - dismissed case for lack of cause of action. Santiago went to the Supreme Court.

HELD:
a. Committee on Rating of Students for Honor exercised neither judicial nor quasi-judicial functions.
b. 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.

SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. NTC

FACTS:
MC 13-6-2000 (Billing Circular) - issued by NTC, requires 2 year validity of prepaid SIM and Call Cards; identification of prepaid card
buyers; and call balance announcement.
IslaCom and PILTEL - sought nullity of Circular before RTC-QC alleging that it is oppressive, confiscatory and constitutes deprivation
of property without due process of law. Globe and Smart intervened.
NTC - moved to dismiss case on the ground of Smart's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
RTC - denied motion to dismiss. NTC appealed to CA.
CA - granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition.

HELD:
a. in questioning the validity of RULE or REGULATION issued by an administrative agency, party need not exhaust administrative
remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of administrative agency was performed pursuant to its
quasi-judicial function.
b. issuance by NTC of Circular was pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. As such, Smart was justified in invoking
the judicial power of RTC to assail validity of said issuances.
GUERZON v. COURT of APPEALS
FACTS:
Pedro Guerzon (and Shell) - are parties to "Service Station Lease" for the use of Shell's properties, facilities, and equipment; and
"Dealer Sale's Contract" for the sale of Shell gasoline and other petroleum products at gasoline station located at Cagayan de
Oro City.
Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) - approved the Dealer's Sales Contract.
Paragraph 9 of Contract - provides "cancellation or termination of Dealer's Sale's Contract shall automatically cancel the lease."
Guerzon - for his failure to surrender premises, upon expiration of contract, was ordered by BEU to vacate premises. Shell
accompanied by law enforcement authorities secured possession of gasoline station. He filed an action for injunction.
RTC - dismissed the complaint.
CA - sustained RTC.

HELD:
a. jurisdiction to order lessee to vacate leased premises is vested in civil courts in unlawful detainer or accion publiciana. (Secs.
19(2) and 33(2), BP 129. There is nothing in PD 1206 that would suggest that the same or similar jurisdiction has been granted to
Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU).
b. BEU's jurisdiction is limited to cases involving violation or non-compliance with any term or condition of any certificate, license or
permit issued by it or of any of its orders, decisions, rules or regulations.

ANTIPOLO REALTY v. NHA

FACTS:
Jose Hernando - acquired ownership over a lot in Ponderosa Heights, Antipolo, from Antipolo Realty. Hernando transferred his rights
to Virgilio Yuson. For failure of Antipolo Realty to fully develop the subdivision and introduce improvements, in accordance with
Clause 17 of Contract to Sell, Yuson stopped monthly installment payments.
Antipolo Realty - rescinded the contract and forfeited all payments made by Yuson.
Yuson - went to NHA, which ordered reinstatement of the contract.
Antipolo Realty - with the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration, went to the Supreme Court asserting that jurisdiction over the
case was lodged in the regular courts, not NHA, since the complaint involved interpretation of the Contract to Sell.

HELD:
a. In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which an administrative agency may exercise is defined in the
enabling act of such agency.
b. Under PD 1344, in addition to its powers provided for PD 957, NHA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of
the following nature:
i. Unsound real estate business practices;
ii. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner,
developer, dealer, broker, or salesman; and
iii. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or
condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.