RUPERTO V.

TORRES The members of this Commission have since

Special civil action by certiorari was instituted
against an administrative agency exercising only
investigatory and advisory powers.
Facts: A complaint was filed against R,
petitioner-appellee, charging him with
disloyalty to service, partiality, favoritism,
violation of his oath of office and acquisition of
a big real-estate beyond his income received
from the government. A copy of the complaint
was submitted to the Integrity Board, of which
the respondents-appellants were members. The
Board found after hearing that the charges of
prosecution and partiality were sufficiently
established and concluded that petitioner had
made use of his public office to serve and favor
his friends and to prosecute the enemies of the
latter,instead of observing absolute impartiality
and fairness in the performance of his official
duties. In view of its findings,the Board
recommended that petitioner-appellee be
reprimanded with the warning that any
repetition of any misconduct on his part will be
more severely dealt with.
The Integrity Board was created by Executive
Order No. 318, dated May 25, 1950. A cursory
reading of Executive Order No. 318 readily
reveals that the duties and functions of the
Integrity Board are to "proceed to a thorough
and complete investigation of any specific case
of graft, corruption, dereliction of duty or
irregularity in office and to submit to the
President the record of such investigation
together with its findings and
recommendation."
On December 30, 1953, the Integrity Board was
superseded by the Presidential Complaints and
Action Commission, with the same powers,
duties and functions as the Integrity Board.
then been substituted in this case in place of
the original respondents. The first assignment
of error made in the appeal is that certiorari
does not lie against the Integrity Board as it
exercises only investigatory and advisory
powers.
Issue:
Was the defunct Integrity Board or its
successor, Presidential Complaints and Action
Commission, a board exercising judicial
functions?
Held:
No. (1) Board's function limited to conducting
investigations and making findings. -"The board
neither adjudicates upon nor determines the
rights and interests or duties of parties; it is
limited to investigating the facts and making
findings in respect thereto. After an
investigation by the Integrity Board, the officer
that ultimately passes upon and adjudicates the
rights of the parties is the President, not the
Integrity Board, or its successor, the
Presidential Complaints and Action Commission.
While it is true that the Integrity Board in
performing its duties and exercising its
functions may exercise what is known as judicial
discretion, because it evaluates the evidence
submitted to it on the facts and circumstances
presented, such judicial discretion is only for
the purpose of evaluation and for the
determination of disputed facts."
(2) Test of judicial functions. -"Not every
function wherein judgment and discretion are
exercised is a judicial function. The test of a
judicial function is not the exercise of judicial
discretion, but the power and authority to
adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of
the parties before it. As the Board lacks the
power and authority to adjudicate upon the
matters submitted to it for investigation and
make the final pronouncement thereon
affecting the parties, the second requisite for
the availability of the action of certiorari is
wanting." (Ruperto v. Torres, [unrep.J 100 Phil.
1098 [1957/.)