"The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof." (Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
|
|---|
Respondent Abiera of the PAO filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Judge Maceda, alleging that Judge Maceda has falsified his certificate of service by certifying that he rendered decisions in all civil and criminal cases at a certain date, within the 90 day period set by the Constitution and Rules, when in fact, he hasn’t.
Judge Maceda filed an ex-parte motion to refer the case to the Supreme Court but the Ombudsman denied the motion. Thus, he filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order with the Supreme Court. Maceda contends that he had been granted an extension of 90 days to decide the aforementioned cases. He also contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over said case since the offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his official duties, which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the Supreme Court's constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts.
Issues:
Judge Maceda filed an ex-parte motion to refer the case to the Supreme Court but the Ombudsman denied the motion. Thus, he filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order with the Supreme Court. Maceda contends that he had been granted an extension of 90 days to decide the aforementioned cases. He also contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over said case since the offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his official duties, which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the Supreme Court's constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts.
Issues:
1. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of a judge's certification submitted to the Supreme Court
2. Assuming that it can, whether a referral should be made first to the Supreme Court.
3. Can the Ombudsman subpoena the Supreme Court and its personnel?
2. Assuming that it can, whether a referral should be made first to the Supreme Court.
3. Can the Ombudsman subpoena the Supreme Court and its personnel?
Held:
1. The office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by a judge even if the charged is unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.
2. In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. By virtue of this power, 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.
The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by the Constitution, for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel, but likewise undermines the independence of the judiciary.
Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner's certificates of service to this Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such a determination… In fine, where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.
3. No. The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of government, to submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter, as suggested by public respondent Abiera in his affidavit-complaint. The rationale for the foregoing pronouncement is evident in this case. Administratively, the question before Us is this: should a judge, having been granted by this Court an extension of time to decide cases before him, report these cases in his certificate of service? As this question had not yet been raised with, much less resolved by, this Court, how could the Ombudsman resolve the present criminal complaint that requires the resolution of said question?
Petition GRANTED. The Ombudsman directed to dismiss the complaint and refer it to the SC. (Maceda vs. Vasquez G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993)
1. The office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by a judge even if the charged is unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.
2. In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. By virtue of this power, 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.
The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by the Constitution, for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel, but likewise undermines the independence of the judiciary.
Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner's certificates of service to this Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such a determination… In fine, where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.
3. No. The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of government, to submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter, as suggested by public respondent Abiera in his affidavit-complaint. The rationale for the foregoing pronouncement is evident in this case. Administratively, the question before Us is this: should a judge, having been granted by this Court an extension of time to decide cases before him, report these cases in his certificate of service? As this question had not yet been raised with, much less resolved by, this Court, how could the Ombudsman resolve the present criminal complaint that requires the resolution of said question?
Petition GRANTED. The Ombudsman directed to dismiss the complaint and refer it to the SC. (Maceda vs. Vasquez G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993)
0 Comments
Post a Comment