B.

Distinguished from judicial power

Carino vs CHR 204 SCRA 483
Facts: Some 800 public school teachers, among them members of the Manila
PublicSchool Teachers Association (MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers
(ACT)undertook what they described as amass concerted actions" to "dramatize and
highlight'their plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act
upongrievances that had time and again been brought to the latter's attention. According
tothem they had decided to undertake said "mass concerted actions" after the protest
rallystaged at the DECS premises on September 14, 1990 without disrupting classes as a
lastcall for the government to negotiate the granting of demands had elicited no
responsefrom the Secretary of Education. Through their representatives, the
teachersparticipating in the mass actions were served with an order of the Secretary of
Educationto return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal, and a memorandum directing
the DECSofficials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not
complyand to hire their replacements. "For failure to heed the return-to-work order, the
CHRcomplainants (private respondents) were administratively charged on the basis of
theprincipal's report and given five (5) days to answer the charges. They were
alsopreventively suspended for ninety (90) days 'pursuant to Section 41 of P.D. 807'
andtemporarily replaced. An investigation committee was consequently formed to hear
thecharges in accordance with P.D. 807."Issue: WON the Commission on Human Rights
has jurisdiction, adjudicatory powersover, or the power to try and decide, or hear and
determine, certain specific type ofcases, like alleged human rights violation involving
civil or political rights.Held: The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to
have no such power.The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission
the power toinvestigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political
rights. It canexercise that power on its own initiative or on complaint of any person. It
may exercisethat power pursuant to such rules of procedure as it may adopt and, in cases
ofviolations of said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. In
thecourse of any investigation conducted by it or under its authority, it may
grantimmunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession
ofdocuments or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth. It
mayalso request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in
theperformance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in extending
suchremedy as may be required by its findings.But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear
and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do."x x 'It may be
said generally that the exercise of judicial functions is to determine what the law is, and
what the legal rights of parties are,with respect to a matter in controversy; and whenever
an officer is clothed with thatauthority, and undertakes to determine those questions, he
acts judicially.'x x."
Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power
"toinvestigate," cannot and should not "try and resolve on the merits" (adjudicate)
thematters involved in Striking Teachers HRC

Provident Tree Farms vs Batario, Jr. 231 SCRA 463

Facts : PETITIONER PROVIDENT TREE FARMS, INC. (PTFI), is a
Philippinecorporation engaged in industrial tree planting. It grows gubas trees in
itsplantations in Agusan and Mindoro which it supplies to a local matchmanufacturer
solely for production of matches. In consonance with the statepolicy to encourage
qualified persons to engage in industrial tree plantation, Sec.36, par. (1), of the Revised
Forestry Code 1 confers on entities like PTFI a set ofincentives among which is a
qualified ban against importation of wood and"wood-derivated" products. Private
respondent A. J. International Corporation(AJIC) imported four (4) containers of matches
from Indonesia, which the Bureauof Customs, and two (2) more containers of matches
from Singapore. Uponrequest of PTFI, Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., of the
Department ofNatural Resources and Environment issued a certification that "there
areenough available softwood supply in the Philippines for the match industry
atreasonable price." PTFI then filed with the Regional Court of Manila acomplaint for
injunction and damages with prayer for a temporary restrainingorder against respondents
Commissioner of Customs and AJIC to enjoin thelatter from importing matches and
"wood-derivative" products, and the Collectorof Customs from allowing and releasing the
importations.AJIC moved todismiss the case asseverating that the enforcement of the
import ban under Sec.36, par. (1), of the Revised Forestry Code is within the exclusive
realm of theBureau of Customs, and direct recourse of petitioner to the Regional Trial
Courtto compel the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban is devoid of any
legalbasis.Issue : WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.Ruling : PTFI's
correspondence with the Bureau of Customs contesting thelegality of match importations
may already take the nature of an administrativeproceeding the pendency of which would
preclude the court from interferingwith it under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction.Under the sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction . ..
thecourts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which iswithin
the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, where the questiondemands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring the specialknowledge, experience, and services
of the administrative tribunal to determinetechnical and intricate matters of fact, and a
uniformity of ruling is essential tocomply with the purposes of the regulatory statute
administered.
In this era of clogged court dockets, the need for specialized administrativeboards or
commissions with the special knowledge, experience and capability tohear and determine
promptly disputes on technical matters or essentially factualmatters, subject to judicial
review in case of grave abuse of discretion, hasbecome well nigh indispensable