G.R. No. 96681 December 2, 1991HON. ISIDROCARIO, inhiscapaci!asSecrear!o"heDeparmeno"#$%caion, C%&%re'Spors, DR. #R(INDA(O(ARGA, in her capaci! as S%perinen$en o" Ci! Schoo&s o" )ani&a,petitioners,vs.*H#CO))ISSIONONH+)ANRIGH*S, GRACIANO,+DO-, .+(I#*A,A,ARAN, #(SAI,A,AO, H#(#N(+/O, A)/AROGON0A(#S, (+0 D#( CAS*I((O, #(SA R#-#S an$ A/O(INARIO #S,#R, respondents. NAR1ASA, J.:pThe issue raised in the special civil action of certiorari and prohibition at bar, instituted by the Solicitor General, may be formulated asfollows: where the relief sought from the Commission on Human Rights by a party in a case consists of the review and reversal ormodification of a decision or order issued by a court of ustice or government agency or official e!ercising "uasi#udicial functions, maythe Commission ta$e cogni%ance of the case and grant that relief& Stated otherwise, where a particular subect#matter is placed by lawwithin the urisdiction of a court or other government agency or official for purposes of trial and adudgment, may the Commission onHuman Rights ta$e cogni%ance of the same subect#matter for the same purposes of hearing and adudication&The facts narrated in the petition are not denied by the respondents and are hence ta$en as substantially correct for purposes of rulingon the legal "uestions posed in the present action. These facts, 1 together with others involved in related cases recently resolved bythis Court 2 or otherwise undisputed on the record, are hereunder set forth.'. (n September '), '**+, a ,onday and a class day, some -++ public school teachers, among them members of the ,anila .ublicSchool Teachers /ssociation 0,.ST/1 and /lliance of Concerned Teachers 0/CT1 undertoo$ what they described as 2mass concertedactions2 to 2dramati%e and highlight2 their plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances thathad time and again been brought to the latter3s attention. /ccording to them they had decided to underta$e said 2mass concertedactions2 after the protest rally staged at the 45CS premises on September '6, '**+ without disrupting classes as a last call for thegovernmenttonegotiatethegrantingof demandshadelicitednoresponsefromtheSecretaryof 5ducation. The2massactions2consisted in staying away from their classes, converging at the 7iwasang 8onifacio, gathering in peaceable assemblies, etc. Throughtheir representatives, the teachers participating in the mass actions were served with an order of the Secretary of 5ducation to return towor$ in 96 hours or face dismissal, and a memorandum directing the 45CS officials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings againstthose who did not comply and to hire their replacements. Those directives notwithstanding, the mass actions continued into the wee$,with more teachers oining in the days that followed. 2/mong those who too$ part in the 2concerted mass actions2 were the eight 0-1 private respondents herein, teachers at the Ramon,agsaysay High School, ,anila, who had agreed to support the non#political demands of the ,.ST/. 39. :or failure to heed the return#to#wor$ order, the CHR complainants 0private respondents1 were administratively charged on the basisof the principal3s report and given five 0;1 days to answer the charges. They were also preventively suspended for ninety 0*+1 days2pursuant to Section 6' of ..4. -+)2 and temporarily replaced 0unmar$ed CHR 5!hibits, /nne!es :, G, H1. /n investigation committeewas conse"uently formed to hear the charges in accordance with ..4. -+). 4o. 45CS *+#+-9 in which CHR complainants Graciano 8udoy, ?r., ?ulieta 8abaran, 7u%del Castillo, /polinario5sber were, amongothers, namedrespondents,6thelatter filedseparateanswers, optedfor aformalinvestigation, and also moved 2for suspension of the administrative proceedings pending resolution by . . 0the Supreme1 Court of theirapplication for issuance of an inunctive writ@temporary restraining order.2 8ut when their motion for suspension was denied by (rderdated >ovember -, '**+ of the =nvestigating Committee, which later also denied their motion for reconsideration orally made at thehearing of >ovember '6, '**+, 2the respondents led by their counsel staged a wal$out signifying their intent to boycott the entireproceedings.2 5 The case eventually resulted in a 4ecision of Secretary CariAo dated 4ecember '), '**+, rendered after evaluation ofthe evidence as well as the answers, affidavits and documents submitted by the respondents, decreeing dismissal from the service of/polinario 5sber and the suspension for nine 0*1 months of 8abaran, 8udoy and del Castillo. 86. =n the meantime, the 2,.ST/ filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of ,anila against petitioner 0CariAo1, whichwas dismissed 0unmar$ed CHR 5!hibit, /nne! =1. 7ater, the ,.ST/ went to the Supreme Court 0oncertiorari, in an attempt to nullifysaid dismissal, grounded on the1 alleged violation of the stri$ing teachers2 right to due process and peaceable assembly doc$eted asG.R. >o. *;66;,supra. The /CT also filed a similar petition before the Supreme Court . . . doc$eted as G.R. >o. *;;*+.2 98othpetitionsinthisCourtwerefiledinbehalf of theteacherassociations, afewnamedindividuals, and "otherteacher-memberssonumerous similarly situated" or "other similarly situated public school teachers too numerous to be impleaded.";. =n the meantime, too, the respondent teachers submitted sworn statements dated September 9), '**+ to the Commission on HumanRights to complain that while they were participating in peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of their replacements as teachers,allegedly without notice and conse"uently for reasons completely un$nown to them. 16B. Their complaints C and those of other teachers also 2ordered suspended by the . . . 045CS1,2 all numbering forty#two 0691 C weredoc$eted as "Striking Teachers CHR Case No. 9077.2 =n connection therewith the Commission scheduled a 2dialogue2 on (ctober '','**+, and sent a subpoena to Secretary CariAo re"uiring his attendance therein. 11(n the day of the 2dialogue,2 although it said that it was 2not certain whether he 0Sec. CariAo1 received the subpoena which was servedat his office, . . . 0the1 Commission, with the Chairman presiding, and Commissioners Hesi"uio R. ,allilin and >arciso C. ,onteiro,proceededtohear thecaseD2 it heardthecomplainants3 counsel 0a1e!plainthat hisclientshadbeen2denieddueprocessandsuspended without formal notice, and unustly, since they did not oin the mass leave,2 and 0b1 e!patiate on the grievances which were2the cause of the mass leave of ,.ST/ teachers, 0and1 with which causes they 0CHR complainants1 sympathi%e.2 12 The Commissionthereafter issued an (rder 12 reciting these facts and ma$ing the following disposition:To be properly apprised of the real facts of the case and be accordingly guided in its investigation and resolution of thematter, considering that these forty two teachers are now suspended and deprived of their wages, which they needvery badly, Secretary =sidro CariAo, of the 4epartment of 5ducation, Culture and Sports, 4r. 5rlinda 7olarga, schoolsuperintendent of ,anila and the .rincipal of Ramon ,agsaysay High School, ,anila, are hereby enoined to appearandenlightentheCommissionenbancon(ctober'*, '**+at'':++/.,. andtobringwiththemanyandalldocumentsrelevanttotheallegationsaforestatedhereintoassisttheCommissioninthismatter.(therwise, theCommission will resolve the complaint on the basis of complainants3 evidence.!!! !!! !!!). Through the (ffice of the Solicitor General, Secretary CariAo sought and was granted leave to file a motion to dismiss the case. Hismotion to dismiss was submitted on >ovember '6, '**+ alleging as grounds therefor, 2that the complaint states no cause of action andthat the CHR has no urisdiction over the case.2 13-. .ending determination by the Commission of the motion to dismiss, udgments affecting the 2stri$ing teachers2 were promulgated intwo 091 cases, as aforestated, !i".:a1 The4ecisiondated4ecember l), '**+of 5ducationSecretaryCariAoinCase>o. 45CS*+#+-9, decreeingdismissal from the service of /polinario 5sber and the suspension for nine 0*1 months of 8abaran, 8udoy and delCastilloD 14 andb1 The oint Resolution of this Court dated /ugust B, '**' in G.R. >os. *;66; and *;;*+ dismissing the petitions2without preudicetoanyappeals, if still timely, that theindividual petitioners mayta$etotheCivil ServiceCommission on the matters complained of,2 16 and inter alia 2ruling that it was prima #acie lawful for petitioner CariAoto issue return#to#wor$ orders, file administrative charges against recalcitrants, preventively suspend them, and issuedecision on those charges.2 15*. =nan(rderdated4ecember9-, '**+, respondentCommissiondeniedSec. CariAo3smotiontodismissandre"uiredhimandSuperintendent 7olarga 2to submit their counter-a##ida!its $ithin ten %&0' days . . . %a#ter $hich' the Commission shall proceed to hearand resol!e the case on the merits $ith or $ithout respondents counter a##ida!it.2 18 =t held that the 2stri$ing teachers2 2were denieddue process of lawD . . . they should not have been replaced without a chance to reply to the administrative chargesD2 there had been aviolation of their civil and political rights which the Commission was empowered to investigateD and while e!pressing its 2utmost respectto the Supreme Court . . . the facts before . . . 0it1 are different from those in the case decided by the Supreme Court2 0the referencebeing unmista$ably to this Court3s oint Resolution of /ugust B, '**' in G.R. >os. *;66; and *;;*+, supra1.=t istoinvalidateandset asidethis(rderof 4ecember9-, '**+that theSolicitor General, inbehalf of petitioner CariAo, hascommenced the present action of certiorari and prohibition.The Commission on Human Rights has made clear its position that it does not feel bound by this Court3s oint Resolution in G.R. >os.*;66; and *;;*+, supra. =t has also made plain its intention 2to hear and resolve the case 0i.e., Stri$ing Teachers HRC Case >o. *+#));1 on the merits.2 =t intends, in other words, to try and decide or hear and determine( i)e)( e*ercise +urisdiction over the followinggeneral issues:'1 whether or not the stri$ing teachers were denied due process, and ust cause e!ists for the imposition of administrative disciplinarysanctions on them by their superiorsD and91 whether or not the grievances which were 2the cause of the mass leave of ,.ST/ teachers, 0and1 with which causes they 0CHRcomplainants1 sympathi%e,2 ustify their mass action or stri$e.The Commission evidently intends to itselfad+udicate, that is to say, determine with character of finality and definiteness, the sameissues which have been passed upon and decided by the Secretary of 5ducation, Culture E Sports, subect to appeal to the Civil ServiceCommission, this Court having in fact, as aforementioned, declared that the teachers affected may ta$e appeals to the Civil ServiceCommission on said matters, if still timely.The threshold "uestion is whether or not the Commission on Human Rights has the power under the Constitution to do soD whether ornot, li$e a court of ustice, 19 or even a "uasi#udicial agency, 26 it has urisdiction or adudicatory powers over, or the power to try anddecide, or hear and determine, certain specific type of cases, li$e alleged human rights violations involving civil or political rights.The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such powerD and that it was not meant by the fundamental law to beanother court or "uasi#udicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less ta$e over the functions of the latter.The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adudicative power is that it may in!estigate, i.e., receive evidenceandma$efindingsof fact asregardsclaimedhumanrightsviolationsinvolvingcivil andpolitical rights. 8ut fact findingisnotadudication, and cannot be li$ened to the +udicial #unction of a court of ustice, or even a "uasi#udicial agency or official. The functionof receivingevidenceandascertainingtherefromthefactsof acontroversyisnot audicial function, properlyspea$ing. Tobeconsideredsuch, thefacultyof receivingevidenceandma$ingfactual conclusionsinacontroversymust beaccompaniedbytheauthority of applying the la$ to those #actual conclusions to the end that the contro!ersy may be decided or determined authoritati!ely(#inallyandde#initi!ely( sub+ecttosuchappealsormodeso# re!ie$asmaybepro!idedbyla$.21Thisfunction, torepeat, theCommission does not have. 22The proposition is made clear by the constitutional provisions specifying the powers of the Commission on Human Rights.The Commission was created by the '*-) Constitution as an independent office. 22 Fpon its constitution, it succeeded and supersededthe .residential Committee on Human Rights e!isting at the time of the effectivity of the Constitution.23 =ts powers and functions arethe following 240'1 =nvestigate, onits own oron complaint by anyparty, allforms of human rights violations involving civil andpolitical rightsD091 /dopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordancewith the Rules of CourtD0C=5S 0governmental orprivate1 and of /77 7/GH5RS, ?F4G5S, and ?FST=C5S.:inally, the Commission should reali%e that while there are "human rights"( there are also corresponding "human obligations." /ADI((A, J., dissenting:= vote to dismiss the petition for the same reasons stated in my earlier separate opinion filed in this case.4=G5ST(n September '), '**+, some -++ public school teachersin ,anila did not attend wor$ and decided to stage rallies in order to airgrievances. /saresultthereof,eightteachersweresuspendedfromwor$for*+days. Theissuewastheninvestigated, andon4ecember '), '**+, 45CS Secretary =sidro CariAo ordered the dismissal from the service of one teacher and the suspension of threeothers. The case was appealed to the Commission on Human Rights. =n the meantime, the Solicitor General filed an action for certiorariregarding the case and prohibiting the CHR from continuing the case. >evertheless, CHR continued trialand issued a subpoena toSecretary CariAo.ISS+#8 Ghether or not CHR has the power to try and decide and determine certain specific cases such as the alleged human rightsviolation involving civil and political rights.H#(D8>o. The CHR is not competent to try such case. =t has no udicialpower. =t can only investigate allforms of human rightsviolation involving civil and political rights but it cannot and should not try and decide on the merits and matters involved therein. TheCHR is hence then barred from proceeding with the trialG.R. No. 166146 .an%ar! 4, 1993,RIGIDO R. SI)ON, .R., CAR(OS 9+I)/O, CAR(I*O A,#(ARDO, AND G#N#ROSO OCA)/O,petitioners,vs.CO))ISSION ON H+)AN RIGH*S, RO9+# :#R)O, AND O*H#RS AS .OHN DO#S, respondents.The City -ttorney #or petitioners)The Solicitor 1eneral #or public respondent) 1I*+G, J.:Thee!tentof theauthority and power of theCommissiononHumanRights 02CHR21 is again placed into focus inthis petition forprohibition, with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary inunction. The petitioners as$ us to prohibit public respondent CHR fromfurther hearing and investigating CHR Case >o. *+#';-+, entitled 2:ermo, et al. vs. Iuimpo, et al.2The case all started when a 24emolition >otice,2 dated * ?uly '**+, signed by Carlos Iuimpo 0one of the petitioners1 in his capacity asan 5!ecutive (fficer of the Iue%on City =ntegrated Haw$ers ,anagement Council under the (ffice of the City ,ayor, was sent to, andreceived by, the private respondents 0being the officers and members of the >orth 54S/ Jendors /ssociation, =ncorporated1. =n saidnotice, therespondentsweregivenagrace#periodof three0orth 54S/. The complaint was doc$eted as CHR Case >o. *+#';-+.2 (n 9