Fuentes v. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DPWH, filed an expropriation case against property owners for the construction of a fly-over in Davao City. The case was presided over by Judge Renato A. Fuentes. The government won the case, but as of May 19, 1994, it still owed the defendants a total sum of P15,510,415.00. In an order dated April 5, 1994, the lower court granted Tessie Amadeo's motion for a writ of execution against the DPWH. A writ of execution was issued on April 6, 1994, and served on April 15, 1994. On May 3, 1994, Sheriff Paralisan issued a Notice of Levy on 'All scrap iron/junks found in the premises of the Department of Public Works and Highways depot at Panacan, Davao City.' An auction sale was held on May 18, 1994, where Alex Bacquial was the highest bidder. Sheriff Paralisan issued a certificate of sale. On May 19, 1994, Bacquial and Sheriff Paralisan attempted to withdraw the auctioned properties but were prevented by Engr. Ramon Alejo, who claimed the properties were serviceable. On May 20, 1994, Judge Fuentes granted Bacquial's ex-parte urgent motion for a 'break through' order. Bacquial and Sheriff Paralisan returned to the depot with the order and hauled equipment for five successive days. Subsequently, the lower court issued an order temporarily suspending the writ of execution and directing Bacquial not to implement it. However, on June 21, 1994, the lower court issued another order upholding the validity of the writ of execution. Procedural History: Based on letters from Congressman Manuel M. Garcia and Engr. Ramon A. Alejo, the Court Administrator directed Judge Fuentes and Sheriff Paralisan to comment on a report recommending an administrative case against the sheriff. The DPWH also filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Paralisan. On August 23, 1995, the Supreme Court dismissed Sheriff Paralisan from the service for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and directed the Office of the Court Administrator to investigate Judge Renato Fuentes and charge him if warranted. The Office of the Solicitor General was ordered to recover the value of unlawfully hauled equipment. On January 15, 1996, Director Antonio E. Valenzuela of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao recommended that Judge Fuentes be charged with violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(e) before the Sandiganbayan and administratively charged before the Supreme Court. On January 22, 1996, a criminal complaint was filed against Judge Fuentes. On February 6, 1996, Graft Investigation Officer II Marivic A. Trabajo-Daray ordered petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit. On February 22, 1996, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and/or manifest to forward records to the Supreme Court. On March 15, 1996, the motion was denied. The Petition: Petitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes filed a petition for certiorari assailing the Ombudsman's action investigating him for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(e), arguing that the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of discretion by encroaching on the Supreme Court's power of administrative supervision over the judiciary.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation of acts of a judge in the exercise of his official functions alleged to be in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in the absence of an administrative charge for the same acts before the Supreme Court, thereby encroaching on the power of the Supreme Court of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Whether the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he initiated a criminal complaint against petitioner for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(e) and conducted an investigation thereof.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the case and refer the complaint against petitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Ombudsman's authority to investigate judges: The Court reiterated that the Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint before his office against a judge, pursuant to his power to investigate public officers under Republic Act No. 6770. Section 21 of R.A. No. 6770 explicitly states that the Office of the Ombudsman has disciplinary authority over all officials, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. Therefore, the Ombudsman must indorse such cases to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. This is in line with the constitutional mandate vesting exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel in the Supreme Court under Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution. No other branch of government may intrude into this power without violating the independence of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court emphasized that the authority to oversee judges and court personnel and take proper administrative action against them for violations of law rests solely with the Supreme Court. The Ombudsman's encroachment into this exclusive domain constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that whether an order of execution was valid or erroneous must be inquired into by the Supreme Court in the course of judicial action, and no other entity has the competence to review a judicial order or pronounce it erroneous as a basis for a criminal or administrative complaint. The Ombudsman's investigation into the judge's official acts was therefore improper and beyond its jurisdiction. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court addressed the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he initiated a criminal complaint against petitioner for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(e) and conducted an investigation thereof.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint before his office against a judge for acts done in the exercise of his official functions. Such cases must be indorsed to the Supreme Court for appropriate action, as the latter exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel.