POBLETE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND DOMINGO POBLETE, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND JUDITH ASIAIN, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Poblete Construction Co. and Domingo Poblete, its president and
general manager, appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal dated May 19, 1960 dismissing Civil Case No. 2049—an action
for certiorari against the Social Security Commission—hereinafter
referred to as the Commission—and Judith Asiain—and dissolving the
writ of preliminary injunction issued therein.

In a petition filed with the Social Security Commission on January
27, 1960, (Case No. 78) Judith Asiain sought to recover from appellants
the death benefits she would have been entitled to receive from the
Social Security System had appellants—the employers of her
husband—reported him to the System for coverage prior to his death, as
required by law.

Appellants’ motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
Commission had no jurisdiction over the case, as appellee’s husband was
not covered by the System, was denied and the Commission required
appellants to answer the claim. Not having done so, the Commission,
upon motion of appellee, entered an order of default and set the date
for the reception of appellees’ evidence. In view thereof, appellants
filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal a petition for
certiorari with injunction (Civil. Case No. 2049-P) to enjoin the
Commission from further proceedings in said case. The Court issued a
writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Commission from
proceeding with the case pending final determination of the action for
certiorari.

Instead of filing an answer to the petition for certiorari,
appellees moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction and improper venue. Over appellants’ opposition, the lower
court issued the order appealed from.

Appellants now claim that the lower court erred in dismissing the
case and in not ruling, after trial, that the Social Security
Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the petition filed
with it by Judith Asiain and her minor children, the subject matter of
which should have been submitted in an ordinary civil action before the
regular courts.

We find the present appeal to be without merit.

In taking cognizance of the petition filed by Judith Asiain (Case
No. 78), the Social Security Commission was exercising its
quasi-judicial powers granted by Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No.
1161, as amended. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
claim aforementioned was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission,
and that it would be proper to issue a writ of certiorari or injunction
to restrain it from hearing and deciding the same, a Court of First
Instance has no jurisdiction to issue either of said writs against the
Commission. It must be observed that in accordance with the provisions
of Section 5, paragraphs (a) and (c) of Republic Act
No. 1161, as amended, the decisions of said Commission are reviewable
both upon law and facts by the Court of Appeals, and that if the appeal
from its decision is only on questions of law, the review shall be made
by us. It is clear from these provisions that the Commission, in
exercising its quasi-judicial powers, ranks with the Public Service
Commission and the Courts of First Instance. As the writs of
Injunction, Certiorari and Prohibition may be issued only by a superior
court against an inferior court, board or officer exercising judicial
functions, it necessarily follows that the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, where appellants filed their petition for certiorari, had no
jurisdiction to entertain the same.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.