Title
Carino vs. Commission on Human Rights
Case
G.R. No. 96681
Decision Date
Dec 2, 1991
Public school teachers staged mass actions over grievances, leading to suspensions and dismissals. CHR claimed jurisdiction, but Supreme Court ruled CHR lacks adjudicatory powers, limiting it to investigatory functions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 96681)

Facts of the Mass Concerted Action

On September 17, 1990, members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association and the Alliance of Concerned Teachers collectively stayed away from their classes and assembled peacefully at Liwasang Bonifacio to dramatize unresolved grievances, following an unheeded rally on September 14.

Return-to-Work Orders and Administrative Charges

Secretary Carino issued a 24-hour return-to-work order, threatened dismissal for noncompliance, and directed DECS officials to initiate dismissal proceedings. An investigating committee under P.D. 807 charged the private respondents, preventively suspended them for 90 days, and conducted formal hearings.

Outcome of DECS Proceedings

After evaluating evidence and submissions, Secretary Carino’s December 17, 1990 decision dismissed Apolinario Esber from service and imposed nine-month suspensions on Babaran, Budoy, and del Castillo for defying official orders.

Parallel Judicial Actions

The Manila Public School Teachers Association and the Alliance of Concerned Teachers filed certiorari petitions in the Regional Trial Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 95445 and 95590), challenging due process. Both petitions were dismissed on August 6, 1991, affirming the legality of the DECS disciplinary measures.

CHR Complaints and Investigation

On September 27, 1990, the eight teachers filed sworn complaints with the CHR alleging sudden replacement and wage deprivation without notice or hearing. The CHR scheduled a dialogue for October 11, 1990, and subpoenaed Secretary Carino and Dr. Lolarga to appear.

Motion to Dismiss and CHR Order

Secretary Carino moved to dismiss CHR Case No. 90-775 for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. On December 28, 1990, the CHR denied the motion, ordered counter-affidavits within ten days, and declared its intent to resolve the complaint on the merits.

Constitutional Threshold on CHR Powers

Under the 1987 Constitution, the CHR’s authority is limited to investigating human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It lacks adjudicatory power to apply law to facts and render binding judgments, a function reserved to courts and qua

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.