RUPERTO V. TORRES Special civil action by certiorari was instituted against an administrative agency exercising only investigatory and advisory powers. Facts: A complaint was filed against R, petitioner-appellee, charging him with disloyalty to service, partiality, favoritism, violation of his oath of office and acquisition of a big real-estate beyond his income received from the government. A copy of the complaint was submitted to the Integrity Board, of which the respondents-appellants were members. The Board found after hearing that the charges of prosecution and partiality were sufficiently established and concluded that petitioner had made use of his public office to serve and favor his friends and to prosecute the enemies of the latter,instead of observing absolute impartiality and fairness in the performance of his official duties. In view of its findings,the Board recommended that petitioner-appellee be reprimanded with the warning that any repetition of any misconduct on his part will be more severely dealt with. The Integrity Board was created by Executive Order No. 318, dated May 25, 1950. A cursory reading of Executive Order No. 318 readily reveals that the duties and functions of the Integrity Board are to "proceed to a thorough and complete investigation of any specific case of graft, corruption, dereliction of duty or irregularity in office and to submit to the President the record of such investigation together with its findings and recommendation." On December 30, 1953, the Integrity Board was superseded by the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission, with the same powers, duties and functions as the Integrity Board.
The members of this Commission have since then been substituted in this case in place of the original respondents. The first assignment of error made in the appeal is that certiorari does not lie against the Integrity Board as it exercises only investigatory and advisory powers.
Issue: Was the defunct Integrity Board or its successor, Presidential Complaints and Action Commission, a board exercising judicial functions?
Held: No. (1) Board's function limited to conducting investigations and making findings. -"The board neither adjudicates upon nor determines the rights and interests or duties of parties; it is limited to investigating the facts and making findings in respect thereto. After an investigation by the Integrity Board, the officer that ultimately passes upon and adjudicates the rights of the parties is the President, not the Integrity Board, or its successor, the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission. While it is true that the Integrity Board in performing its duties and exercising its functions may exercise what is known as judicial discretion, because it evaluates the evidence submitted to it on the facts and circumstances presented, such judicial discretion is only for the purpose of evaluation and for the determination of disputed facts." (2) Test of judicial functions. -"Not every function wherein judgment and discretion are
exercised is a judicial function. The test of a judicial function is not the exercise of judicial discretion, but the power and authority to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties before it. As the Board lacks the power and authority to adjudicate upon the matters submitted to it for investigation and make the final pronouncement thereon affecting the parties, the second requisite for the availability of the action of certiorari is wanting." (Ruperto v. Torres, [unrep.J 100 Phil. 1098 [1957/.)
