MANILA ELECTRIC CO v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO.
WON the Commissioner of Land Registration may only
FACTS: Petition is requesting the members of the SC, sitting
as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms upon which certain
transportation companies shall be permitted to use the
Pasig bridge of the Manila Electric Company and the
compensation to be paid to the Manila Electric Company by
such transportation companies, pursuant to Sec. 11 of Act
No. 1446, which provides that the terms on which other
person or corporation shall use right of way, and the
compensation to be paid to the grantee by such other
person or corporation for said use, shall be fixed by the
members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of
arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be
final.”
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the members of the SC can sit as a board of
arbitrators and act in that capacity. — NO
- The Supreme Court and its members should not and
cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform
any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
connected with the administering of judicial functions.
When the Organic Act speaks of the exercise of
"jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court, it could not only
mean the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court
acting as a court, and could hardly mean the exercise of
"jurisdiction" by the members of the Supreme Court,
sitting as a board of arbitrators.
- Moreover, Congress cannot require or authorize the court
to exercise any other jurisdiction or power, or perform
any other duty.
NOBLEJAS v. TEEHANKEE
FACTS: Noblejas is duly appointed as the commissioner of
land registration, a position created by RA No. 1151. Same
law provides that commissioner is entitled to same
compensation, emoluments and privileges as those of a
Judge of the Court of First Instance. Secretary of Justice
sent him a letter requiring him to explain why no
disciplinary action should be taken against petitioner for
approving subdivision plans in excess of areas covered by
original titles. He was then suspended pending
investigation for gross negligence and conduct prejudicial
to public interest. Noblejas argued that as he enjoyed rank
and privileges of a CFI judge, he can only be suspended in
same manner as the aforementioned position, and
therefore, his case can only be resolved by the SC.
ISSUE/S:
1.
be investigated by the Supreme Court, in view of the
conferment upon him of the rank and privileges of a
Judge of the Court of First Instance. — NO.
- Petitioner’s contention would make such grants of
privileges unconstitutional since it would violate the
fundamental doctrine of separation of powers, by
charging this court with the administrative function of
supervisory control over executive officials, and
simultaneously reducing pro tanto the control of the
Chief Executive over such officials, when the Constitution
has expressly placed the power to discipline and remove
administrative officials who are presidential appointees
under the President’s control and supervision
IN RE: RODOLFO MANZANO
FACTS: Manzano, an RTC Judge, sent a letter to the Court
requesting that he be authorised to accept his appointment
as a member of Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on
Justice, the functions of which are to receive complaints
against any apprehending officers who may have
committed abuse in their discharge of duties and
recommend revision of law or regulation which is
prejudicial to administration of justice, and that his
membership in the Committee not be considered as
violation of the independence of the judiciary.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON Manzano can accept the position. — NO
- The members of the Supreme Court and other courts
established by law shag not be designated to any agency
performing quasi judicial or administrative functions
(Section 12, Art. VIII, Constitution). Administrative
functions are those which involve the regulation and
control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for
their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and
regulations to better carry out the policy of the
legislature.
- Considering the functions of the said Committee, i is
evident that it discharges administrative functions.
Manzano’s membership in the said committee will be in
violation of the Constitution.
- Note that Court urged the judges to render assistance to
said Committees to help promote the laudable purposes
for which they exist, but only when such assistance may
be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial
duties.
DISSENT:
• J. Gutierrez Jr: Administrative functions refer to
management actions, determinations, and orders of
executive officials as they administer the laws and try to
make government effective. There is an element of
positive action, of supervision or control. The membership
in the Provincial or City Committee on Justice would not
involve any regulation or control over the conduct and
affairs of individuals. Neither will the Committee on
Justice promulgate rules and regulations nor exercise any
quasi-legislative functions. Its work is purely advisory. The
majority opinion suggests the giving of assistance by
Judges to the work of the Committees on Justice.
Assistance is a vague term. If judges cannot become
members, why should they be allowed or even
encouraged to assist these Committees. The line drawn by
the majority is vague and unrealistic.
• J. Melencio-Herrera: The Committee on Justice cannot be
likened to such an administrative agency of government.
It is a study group with recommendatory functions. In fact,
membership by members of the Bench in said committee
is called for by reason of the primary functions of their
position.
observed, lest the principle of separation of powers on
which our government rests by mandate of the people
thru the Constitution be gradually eroded by practices
purportedly motivated by good intentions in the interest
of the public service.
- It is thus of grave importance to the judiciary under our
present constitutional scheme of government that no
judge of even the lowest court in this Republic should
place himself in a position where his actuations on
matters submitted to him for action or resolution would
be subject to review and prior approval and, worst still,
reversal, before they can have legal effect, by any
authority other than the Court of Appeals or this Supreme
Courts, as the case may be.

GARCIA v. MACARAIG
FACTS: Garcia filed an administrative complaint against
Garcia in his former capacity as CFI judge for “dishonesty,
violation of oath of office, gross incompetence, and
violation of RA 296. Particularly, she alleges that Macaraig
didn’t submit monthly report of cases and hours in session
that the court held daily, and that he collected his salary
despite non submission of certificate of service in violation
of sec. 5, Judicial Act.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON Macaraig violated Sec. 5 of Judicial Act — NO
- Macaraig has not prepared and submitted any of the
reports of accomplishments and status of cases in his sala
because has not yet started performing any judicial
functions. However, he could not be blamed for not
actually holding office in the court to which he was
appointed was not of his making. The other officials in
charge of providing him therewith seem to have been
caught unprepared and have not had enough time to
have it ready.
- The line between what a judge may do and what he may
not do in collaborating or working with other offices or
officers under the other great departments of the
government must always be kept clear and jealously