2 pages

Santiago vs Bautista.docx

of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Facts: some teachers giving petitioner a starting grade of 75% in Grade VI, which proves that there has already an intention to pull him to a much lower rank  Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a pupil in Grade Six at the public school named at the end of the school year Sero Elementa
  Facts:    Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a pupil in Grade Six at the public school named Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City.    As the school year 1964-1965 was then about to end, the Committee On The Rating Of Students For Honor was constituted by the teachers concerned at said school for the purpose of selecting the honor students of its graduating class .    the above-named committee deliberated and finally adjudged Socorro Medina, Patricia Liñgat and Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as first, second and third honors, respectively.    The school's graduation exercises were thereafter set for May 21, 1965; but three days before that date, the third placer Teodoro Santiago, Jr., represented by his mother, and with his father as counsel, sought the invalidation of the ranking of honor students thus made Complaints:    That Teodoro Santiago, Jr. had been a consistent honor pupil from Grade I to Grade V of the Sero Elementary School that Teodoro Santiago, Jr. had been a consistent honor pupil from Grade I to Grade V of the Sero Elementary School    Patricia Liñgat (second placer in the disputed ranking in Grade VI) had never been a close rival of petitioner before, except in Grade V wherein she ranked third    that Santiago, Jr. had been prejudiced, while his closest rival had been so much benefited, by the circumstance that the latter, Socorro Medina, was coached and tutored during the summer vacation of 1964 by Mrs. Alpas who became the teacher of both pupils in English in Grade VI, resulting in the far lead Medina obtained over the other pupil    that the committee referred to in this case had been illegally constituted as the same was composed of all the Grade VI teachers only, in violation of the Service Manual for Teachers of the Bureau of Public Schools which provides that the committee to select the honor students should be composed of all teachers in Grades V and VI    that there are direct and circumstantial matters, which shall be proven during the trial, wherein respondents have exercised grave abuse of discretion and irregularities, such as the changing of the final ratings on the grading sheets of Socorro Medina and Patricia Liñgat from 80% to 85%, and some teachers giving petitioner a starting grade of 75% in Grade VI, which proves that there has already an intention to pull him to a much lower rank at the end of the school year    As scheduled, the graduation exercises of the Sero Elementary School for the school year 1964-1965 was held on May 21, with the same protested list of honor students. Respondent:    May 24, 1965, they filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds (1) that the action for certiorari was improper, and (2) that even assuming the propriety of the action, the question brought before the court had already become academic. Lower court:    The lower court that his petition states no cause of action  on the grounds (1) that the petition does not comply with the second paragraph of Sec. 1 of Rule 65 because it has not been accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof, together with copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto; (2) That administrative remedies were not first exhausted; and All that the petition alleges is that the petitioner personally appealed to the school authorities who only 'passed the buck to each other.' This allegation does not show that petitioner formally availed of and exhausted the administrative remedies of the Department of Education. The petition implies that this is the first formal complaint of petitioner against his teachers. The administrative agencies of the Department of Education could have investigated the grievances of the petitioner with dispatch and give effective remedies, but petitioner negligently abandoned them. Petitioner cannot now claim that he lacked any plain, speedy and adequate remedy.  (3) That there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the teachers who constituted the committee referred to. (But refer to errors, mistakes, or irregularities)    Respondents argue in favor of the questioned order of dismissal upon the additional ground that the committee on the ratings of students for honor whose actions are here condemned by appellant is not the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions against which an action for certiorari may lie under Section 1 of Rule 65. Ruling: Section 1, Rule 67: In this jurisdiction certiorari is a special civil action instituted against 'any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions.    A judicial function  is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers.   In order for an action for certiorari to exist, test to determine whether a tribunal or board exercises judicial functions:    1) There must be specific controversy involving rights of persons brought before a tribunal for hearing and determination.    2) That the tribunal must have the power and authority to pronounce  judgment and render a decision.    3) The tribunal must pertain to that branch of the sovereign which belongs to the judiciary (or at least the not the legislative nor the executive) The so-called Committee for Rating Honor Students are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial bodies in the performance of its assigned task. It will be gleaned that before tribunal board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts It is necessary that there be a LAW that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are mad e, and the controversy ensuring there from is brought in turn, to the tribunal or board clothed with power and authority to determine 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. Worse still, this Court has not even been appraised by appellant of the pertinent provisions of the Service Manual of Teachers for Public Schools appellees allegedly violated in the composition of the committee they constituted thereunder, and, in the performance of that committee's duties.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!