CAWAD v.

ABAD  As a general compensation policy, and in line with Section

SUMMARY: DOH, in collaboration with various government agencies and health 21 of R. A. No. 7305, Hazard Pay may be granted to PHWs
workers' organizations, promulgated a Revised IRR consolidating all additional and only if the nature of the duties and responsibilities of their
clarificatory rules for the Magna Carta. Petitioners contend that respondents acted with positions, their actual services, and location of work expose
grave abuse of discretion when they issued DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1, Series of them to great danger, occupational risks, perils of life, and
2012 and DBM-CSC Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012 which prescribe certain physical hardships; and only during periods of actual
requirements on the grant of benefits that are not otherwise required by RA No. 7305. exposure to hazards and hardships.
The respondent agencies question the remedies of Certiorari and Prohibition used by o 8.3 The Subsistence Allowance shall be P50for each day of actual
petitioners for the assailed circulars were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative, full-time service, or P25for each day of actual part-time service.
and not of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The Court held that the issuance and o 9.0 Longevity Pay (LP)
enforcement by the Secretaries of the DBM, CSC and DOH of the questioned joint  9.1 Pursuant to Section 23 of R.A. No. 7305, a PHW may
circulars were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative and administrative be granted LP at 5% of his/her current monthly basic salary,
functions. in recognition of every 5 years of continuous, efficient, and
meritorious services rendered as PHW. The grant thereof is
DOCTRINE: The Court has consistently reiterated that petitions for certiorari and based on the following criteria:
prohibition may be invoked only against tribunals, corporations, boards, officers, or  9.1.1 The PHW holds a position in the agency
persons exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, and not against their plantilla of regular positions; and
exercise of legislative or quasi-legislative functions.  9.1.2 He/She has rendered at least satisfactory
 Judicial functions involve the power to determine what the law is and what the performance and has not been found guilty of any
legal rights of the parties are, and then undertaking to determine these administrative or criminal case within all rating
questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. periods covered by the 5-year period.
 Quasi-judicial functions apply to the actions and discretion of public  Petitioners contend that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion
administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, hold hearings, when they issued DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012 and DBM-
and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action, in their CSC Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012 which prescribe certain requirements
exercise of discretion of a judicial nature. on the grant of benefits that are not otherwise required by RA No. 7305.
 Ministerial functions are those which an officer or tribunal performs in the o Petitioners assert that the DBM-DOH Joint Circular grants the
context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without regard to payment of Hazard Pay only if the nature of the PHWs' duties expose
the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act them to danger when RA No. 7305 does not make any qualification.
done. o Said circular unduly fixes Subsistence Allowance at P50 for each day
of full-time service and P25 for part-time service which are not in
FACTS: accordance with prevailing circumstances determined by the
 Republic Act (RA) No. 7305, otherwise known as The Magna Carta of Public Secretary of Health as required by RA No. 7305.
Health Workers was signed into law and public health workers (PHWs) were o Moreover, petitioners fault respondents for the premature effectivity
granted allowances and benefits such as - hazard allowance, subsistence of the DBM-DOH Joint Circular which they believe should have been
allowance, longevity pay, laundry allowance and remote assignment on January 29, 2012 and not on January 1, 2012.
allowance. o As to the grant of Longevity Pay, petitioners posit that the same was
 DOH, in collaboration with various government agencies and health workers' wrongfully granted only to PHWs holding regular plantilla positions.
organizations, promulgated a Revised IRR consolidating all additional and o Petitioners likewise criticize the DBM-CSC Joint Circular insofar as it
clarificatory rules issued by the former Secretaries of Health dating back from withheld the Step Increment due to length of service from those who
the effectivity of the Magna Carta. are already being granted Longevity Pay. As a result, petitioners
 DBM-CSC issued a Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012, to prescribe the rules claim that the subject circulars are void for being an undue exercise
on the grant of Step Increments due to meritorious performance and Step of legislative power by administrative bodies.
Increment due to length of service. Specifically, it provided that "an official or  Respondent agencies question the remedies of Certiorari and
employee authorized to be granted Longevity Pay under an existing law is not Prohibition used by petitioners for the assailed circulars were done in
eligible for the grant of Step Increment due to length of service." the exercise of their quasi-legislative, and not of their judicial or quasi-
 DBM and DOH then circulated the other assailed issuance, DBM-DOH Joint judicial functions.
Circular No. 1, Series of 2012, the relevant provisions of which state:
o 7.0. Hazard Pay. - Hazard pay is an additional compensation for ISSUE: W/N the petition for certiorari and prohibition is the appropriate remedy
performing hazardous duties and for enduring physical hardships in – NO
the course of performance of duties.  Certiorari as a special civil action is available only if:
 1. it is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or  It is likewise beyond the territory of a writ of prohibition since generally, the
quasi-judicial functions; purpose of the same is to keep a lower court within the limits of its
2. the tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of channels. It affords relief against usurpation of jurisdiction by an inferior court,
jurisdiction; and or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction, the inferior court transgresses the
3. there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in bounds prescribed by the law, or where there is no adequate remedy available
the ordinary course of law. in the ordinary course of law.
 Prohibition is available only if:
1. it is directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person
exercising functions, judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial;
2. the tribunal, corporation, board or person acted without or in excess
of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction; and
3. there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.
 The Court has consistently reiterated that petitions for certiorari and
prohibition may be invoked only against tribunals, corporations, boards,
officers, or persons exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions,
and not against their exercise of legislative or quasi-legislative
functions.
 Judicial functions involve the power to determine what the law is and what the
legal rights of the parties are, and then undertaking to determine these
questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.
 Quasi-judicial functions apply to the actions and discretion of public
administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, hold hearings,
and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action, in their
exercise of discretion of a judicial nature.
 Ministerial functions are those which an officer or tribunal performs in the
context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without regard to
the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act
done.
 Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts,
it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights
under which adverse claims are made, and the controversy ensuing
therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with
authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the
contending parties.
 Respondents did not act in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial capacity
in their issuance of the assailed joint circulars.
 The issuance and enforcement by the Secretaries of the DBM, CSC and
DOH of the questioned joint circulars were done in the exercise of their
quasi-legislative and administrative functions.
 Certiorari and prohibition do not lie against respondents' issuances. It is
beyond the province of certiorari to declare the aforesaid administrative
issuances illegal because petitions for certiorari seek solely to correct
defects in jurisdiction, and not to correct just any error committed by a
court, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
unless such court, board, or officer thereby acts without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.