The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. (Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
|
|---|
The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether and administrative aspect is involved therein.
Facts:
Facts:
Alumbres and Caoibes were both RTC Judges stationed in Las Pinas City. The two were entangled in a fight within court premises over a piece of office furniture.
Judge Alumbres filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, a criminal complaint for physical injuries, malicious mischief for the destruction of complainant’s eyeglasses, and assault upon a person in authority. He prayed that criminal charges be filed before the Sandiganbayan against Judge Caoibes.
Judge Alumbres also lodged an administrative case with the SC praying for the dismissal of Judge Caoibes from the judiciary on the ground of grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.
The Office of the Ombudsman required Judge Caoibes to file a counter-affidavit but instead of filing a counter-affidavit, he filed on an "Ex-Parte Motion for Referral to the Honorable Supreme Court," praying that the Office of the Ombudsman hold its investigation of the case, and refer the same to the SC which is already investigating the case. Judge Caoibes contended that the SC, not the Office of the Ombudsman, has the authority to make a preliminary determination of the respective culpability of petitioner and respondent, both being members of the bench, are under its exclusive supervision and control.
The Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion stating that it is within its jurisdiction to investigate on the criminal charges.
Issue:
Judge Alumbres filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, a criminal complaint for physical injuries, malicious mischief for the destruction of complainant’s eyeglasses, and assault upon a person in authority. He prayed that criminal charges be filed before the Sandiganbayan against Judge Caoibes.
Judge Alumbres also lodged an administrative case with the SC praying for the dismissal of Judge Caoibes from the judiciary on the ground of grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.
The Office of the Ombudsman required Judge Caoibes to file a counter-affidavit but instead of filing a counter-affidavit, he filed on an "Ex-Parte Motion for Referral to the Honorable Supreme Court," praying that the Office of the Ombudsman hold its investigation of the case, and refer the same to the SC which is already investigating the case. Judge Caoibes contended that the SC, not the Office of the Ombudsman, has the authority to make a preliminary determination of the respective culpability of petitioner and respondent, both being members of the bench, are under its exclusive supervision and control.
The Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion stating that it is within its jurisdiction to investigate on the criminal charges.
Issue:
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman should defer action on the case pending resolution of the administrative case
Held:
Yes. Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether and administrative aspect is involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the Ombudsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court.
The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its findings that a case before it does or does not have administrative implications. To do so is to deprive the Court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This is a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on judicial independence.
By virtue of its constitutional power of administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Ombudsman is hereby directed to dismiss the complaint filed by respondent Judge Florentino M. Alumbres and to refer the same to this Court for appropriate action. (Caoibes vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001)
Yes. Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether and administrative aspect is involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the Ombudsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court.
The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its findings that a case before it does or does not have administrative implications. To do so is to deprive the Court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This is a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on judicial independence.
By virtue of its constitutional power of administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Ombudsman is hereby directed to dismiss the complaint filed by respondent Judge Florentino M. Alumbres and to refer the same to this Court for appropriate action. (Caoibes vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001)
0 Comments
Post a Comment