Article VII, Judicial Department

Section 1. Judicial Power, Limits

ANTONIO H. NOBLEJAS, as Commissioner of Land Registration, petitioner,

vs.
CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, as Secretary of Justice, and RAFAEL M. SALAS, as Executive
Secretary,respondents.
G.R. No. L-28790 April 29, 1968

Facts: Noblejas was the commissioner of land registration. Under RA 1151, he isentitled 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 himto explain why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him. 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 Registration may only be investigated by the
Supreme Court (in view of his having a rank equivalent to a judge).

Ruling: 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.

Petitioner’s theory that the grant of “privilege of a Judge of First Instance” includes by implication
the right to be investigated only by the Supreme Court and to be suspended or removed upon its
recommendation, would necessarily result in the same right being possessed by a variety of
executive officials upon whom the legislature had indiscriminately conferred the same privileges.
This include (a) the Judicial Superintendent of the DOJ; (b) the Assistant Solicitors General; (c)
the City Fiscal of Quezon City; (d) the City Fiscal of Manila and (e) SEC Commissioner.

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. Petition is Dismissed.