● Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate offense committed by judge whether or not offense relates to official duties
● Jurisdiction to investigate offense related to official duties subject to prior administrative action taken against judge by Supreme Court
Facts:
Respondent Napoleon Abiera of Public Attorney’s Office filed
a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner
RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. alleged that petitioner Maceda has falsified
his certificate of service by certifying that all
civil and criminal
cases which have been
submitted for decision for a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before January
31, 1989, when in truth and in fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no decision
had been rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal
cases that have been submitted
for decision. Respondent Abiera further alleged that petitioner Maceda also
falsified his certificates of service in 1989 and 1990.
Maceda
filed an ex-parte motion to refer the case to the Supreme Court. The Ombudsman,
however, denied the same. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Thus, Maceda 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 by this
Court an extension of ninety (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.
Issue:
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, and assuming that it can, whether a referral should be made first to the
Supreme Court.
Held:
Office
of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate offense committed by judge
whether or not offense relates to official duties
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.
Jurisdiction
to investigate offense related to official duties subject to prior
administrative action taken against judge by Supreme Court
However, 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.
Procedure to be observed by
ombudsman regarding complaint against judge or other court employee
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.
Ombudsman
cannot subpoena the Supreme Court and its personnel
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?
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
The Ombudsman is hereby directed to dismiss the complaint. (Maceda vs.
Vasquez G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993)
0
Comments
