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. 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:
On May 23, 1997, respondent Florentino M. Alumbres, Presiding
Judge of Branch 255 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, 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. Alumbres alleged that on May 20, 1997, at the
hallway on the third floor of the Hall of Justice, Las Pinas City, he requested
petitioner Judge Caoibes (Presiding Judge of RTC 253) to return the executive table he borrowed
from respondent; that petitioner did not answer so respondent reiterated his
request but before he could finish talking, petitioner blurted "Tarantado ito ah," and boxed him at his right eyebrow and
left lower jaw so that the right lens of his eyeglasses was thrown away,
rendering his eyeglasses unserviceable. He prayed that criminal charges be filed
before the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner.
On
June 13, 1997, Respondent Judge lodged an administrative case with the SC
praying for the dismissal of petitioner from the judiciary on the ground of
grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a judicial officer using the same facts
as above.
On
June 25, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman required petitioner to file a
counter-affidavit within 10 days from receipt thereof. Instead of filing a
counter-affidavit, petitioner 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. Petitioner 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 Judge who, both being
members of the bench, are under its exclusive supervision and control.
On
August 22, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion for referral to
the SC stating that under Section 15 (1) of
Republic Act No. 6770, it is within its jurisdiction to investigate on
the criminal charges. It likewise denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman should defer
action on the case pending resolution of the administrative case
Held:
It appears that the present case
involves two members of the judiciary who were entangled in a fight within
court premises over a piece of office furniture. 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, because in
determining whether an administrative matter is involved, the Court passes upon
not only administrative liabilities but also other administrative concerns, as
is clearly conveyed in the case of Maceda vs. Vasquez.
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.
Maceda is emphatic that 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
