Fabian v. Desierto
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Teresita G. Fabian, major stockholder and president of PROMAT Construction Development Corporation (PROMAT), filed an administrative case against private respondent Nestor V. Agustin, then District Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering District (FMED). Agustin allegedly took advantage of his position to inveigle Fabian into an amorous relationship, during which he gifted PROMAT with public works contracts and interceded for it. When Fabian attempted to terminate the relationship, Agustin allegedly resorted to harassment, intimidation, and threats. Procedural History: The complaint sought Agustin's dismissal for grave misconduct, oppression, and disgraceful conduct. The Graft Investigator recommended dismissal, which was modified by the Ombudsman to a one-year suspension. Upon motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman inhibited himself, and the case was transferred to Deputy Ombudsman Jesus F. Guerrero. In a Joint Order, Agustin was absolved of the charges. The Petition: Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the Joint Order absolving Agustin. She questioned the validity of Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), which states that decisions absolving respondents are final and unappealable, arguing it contradicts Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) which allows appeals to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, allowing appeals from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases to the Supreme Court, is constitutional. Whether Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, limiting appeals from exonerations by the Ombudsman, is valid. Whether the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the constitutional issue sua sponte. Whether appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
Ruling
The Supreme Court declared Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court, as INVALID and of no further force and effect. The petition was transferred to the Court of Appeals for disposition as a petition for review under Rule 43.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770: The Court held that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, which allows appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases to the Supreme Court, is unconstitutional. This provision increases the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent, violating Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Constitution aims to give the Supreme Court control over cases under its appellate jurisdiction, and indiscriminate legislative enlargement of this jurisdiction would unduly burden the Court. The legislative history indicated awareness of this constitutional prohibition during the enactment of the Ombudsman Act, yet no consultation with the Supreme Court was made. On the validity of Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07: The Court found that Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, which declares decisions absolving respondents as final and unappealable, is also invalid to the extent that it conflicts with the proper appellate procedure. While the Ombudsman has the power to promulgate its rules of procedure, these rules cannot override constitutional limitations or statutory provisions that dictate the proper appellate pathway. The Court noted that the issue of finality of the exoneration was intertwined with the validity of the appeal mechanism. On the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the constitutional issue sua sponte: The Court asserted its inherent power to determine its own jurisdiction and to pass upon the constitutionality of statutes that affect it, even if the constitutional issue was not raised by the parties. The Court cited that constitutional questions involving jurisdiction can be raised at any time or on the court's own motion. In this case, the Court was intrigued by the jurisdictional implications of Section 27 of RA 6770 and deemed it necessary to resolve the constitutional question for the proper disposition of the case. On the proper appellate procedure for Ombudsman decisions: The Court ruled that, in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The Court clarified that Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure now explicitly limits appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court to judgments and final orders of the regular courts, not quasi-judicial agencies. The transfer of appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals was deemed a procedural matter, not affecting substantive rights, as the right to appeal itself was preserved, only the mode and forum were changed.
Main Doctrine
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, which allows appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari under Rule 45, is declared unconstitutional for increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent, contrary to Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution. Appeals from such decisions should be filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.