Case Digest (G.R. No. 175727)
Facts:
Carino v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 96681, December 02, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners were Hon. Isidro Carino, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), and Dr. Erlinda Lolarga, Superintendent of City Schools of Manila; respondents included the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and eight public-school teachers (Graciano Budoy, Julieta Babaran, Elsa Ibabao, Helen Lupo, Amparo Gonzales, Luz del Castillo, Elsa Reyes and Apolinario Esber) who participated in the so‑called mass concerted actions.
On September 17, 1990 some 800 public school teachers, including members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT), stayed away from classes in peaceful assemblies to press grievances; DECS issued a return-to-work order and directed dismissal proceedings against non‑compliant teachers. Several participating teachers, including the eight private respondents, were charged administratively, preventively suspended (citing Section 41 of P.D. 807) and temporarily replaced; an investigating committee conducted proceedings in DECS Case No. DECS 90-082 that culminated in a December 17, 1990 decision dismissing Apolinario Esber and suspending others.
Separately, MPSTA and ACT filed petitions for certiorari (G.R. Nos. 95445 and 95590) before the Supreme Court challenging DECS actions; this Court issued a joint Resolution dated August 6, 1991 dismissing those petitions and ruling it was prima facie lawful for Secretary Carino to issue return-to-work orders, file administrative charges, and preventively suspend participating teachers, while noting affected individuals could still appeal to the Civil Service Commission where timely.
Meanwhile, forty-two teachers (including the eight respondents) filed complaints with the CHR docketed as Striking Teachers CHR Case No. 90-775; the CHR summoned Secretary Carino to a dialogue held October 11, 1990 and thereafter issued an order enjoining Carino, Lolarga and the school principal to appear on October 19, 1990 and to produce relevant documents. Through the Office of the Solicitor General, Secretary Carino moved to dismiss the CHR complaints for want of cause and jurisdiction; the CHR denied the motion in an Order dated December 28, 1990 and required counter‑affidavits, stating it would investigate and resolve the complaints on the merits.
The Solicitor General then instituted the present special civil action of certiorari and prohibition (seeking annulment of the CHR order) to restrain the CHR ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Commission on Human Rights take cognizance and grant relief that involves reviewing, reversing, or modifying decisions or orders issued by a court or a government agency/official exercising quasi‑judicial functions (i.e., does the CHR have adjudicatory powers)?
- If not, may the CHR nevertheless "hear and resolve on the merits" allegations that disciplinary proceedings or related administrative actions violated the complainants' civil and political rights (e.g., whether the teachers’ mass actions constituted a prohibited strike, whether due process was deni...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)