217. NOBLEJAS VS.

TEEHANKEE

 Noblejas was the commissioner of land registration. Under RA 1151, he is entitled to the
same compensation, emoluments, and privileges as those of a Judge of CFI. He
approved a subdivision plan covering certain areas that are in excess of those covered
by the title
 The Secretary of Justice, Teehankee, sent a letter to Noblejas, requiring him to explain.
 Noblejas answered, arguing that since he has a rank equivalent to that of a Judge, he
could only be suspended and investigated in the same manner as an ordinary Judge,
under the Judiciary Act. He claims that he may be investigated only by the Supreme
Court
 Nevertheless, he was suspended by the Executive Secretary (ES)
 Noblejas filed this case claiming the lack of jurisdiction of the ES and his abuse of
discretion.

ISSUE: Whether the Commissioner of Land Registratoin may only be investigated by the
Supreme Court (in view of his having a rank equivalent to a judge)?

SC: NO.
If the law had really intended to include the general grant of “rank and privileges equivalent
to Judges”, the right to be investigated and be suspended or removed only by the Supreme
Court, then such grant of privileges would be unconstitutional, since it would violate the
doctrine of separation of powers because it would charge the Supreme Court with an
administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials, simultaneously
reducing pro tanto, the control of the Chief Executive over such officials.

There is no inherent power in the Executive or Legislative to charge the Judiciary with
administrative functions except when reasonable incidental to the fulfillment of judicial
duties.

The judiciary cannot give decisions which are merely advisory, nor can it exercise or
participate in the exercise of functions which are essentially legislative or administrative.
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 administration of judicial functions.

As such, RA 1151 while conferring the same privileges as those of a judge, did not include
and was not intended to include, the right to demand investigation by the Supreme Court,
and to be suspended or removed only upon the Court’s recommendation. Said rights would
be violative of the Constitution.

The suspension of Noblejas by the ES valid.

Also, the resolution of the consulta by a Register of Deeds is NOT a judicial function, but an
administrative process. It is conclusive and binding only upon the Register of Deeds, NOT
the parties themselves. Even if the resolution is appealable, it does not automatically mean
that they are judicial in character. Still, the resolution of the consultas are but a minimal
portion of the administrative or executive functions.
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission
\
Facts: The petitioner invokes his constitutional right to information on matters of public
concern in a special civil action for mandamus against the CSC pertaining to the information
of civil service eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the Health
Department of Cebu City. The standing of the petitioner was challenged by the Solicitor
General of being devoid of legal right to be informed of the civil service eligibilities of
government employees for failure of petitioner to provide actual interest to secure the
information sought.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner may invoke his constitutional right to information in the case
at bar.

Held: The court held that when the question is one of public right and the object of the
mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the
real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need
not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that
he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws. The Constitution provides
the guarantee of adopting policy of full public disclosure subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law as in regulation in the manner of examining the public records by the
government agency in custody thereof. But the constitutional guarantee to information on
matters of public concern is not absolute. Under the Constitution, access to official records,
papers, etc., are "subject to limitations as may be provided by law" (Art. III, Sec. 7, second
sentence). The law may therefore exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny,
such as those affecting national security.

The court delves into determining whether the information sought for by the petitioner is of
public interest. All appointments in the Civil Service Commission are made according to merit
and fitness while a public office is a public trust. Public employees therefore are accountable
to the people even as to their eligibilities to their positions in the government. The court also
noted that the information on the result of the CSC eligibility examination is released to the
public therefore the request of petitioner is one that is not unusual or unreasonable. The
public, through any citizen, has the right to verify the civil eligibilities of any person
occupying government positions.