Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 246 views

    Maceda v. Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 8SgE99
    1) The case involved a criminal complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against a judge for allegedly falsifying certificates of service. 2) The judge claimed he had been granted an extension to decide cases by the Supreme Court and that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction. 3) The Supreme Court held that where a criminal complaint against a judge arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer to the Supreme Court, which has exclusive power of administrative supervision over all courts and personnel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Maceda v. Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 8SgE99
    246 views2 pages
    1) The case involved a criminal complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against a judge for allegedly falsifying certificates of service. 2) The judge claimed he had been granted an extension to decide cases by the Supreme Court and that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction. 3) The Supreme Court held that where a criminal complaint against a judge arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer to the Supreme Court, which has exclusive power of administrative supervision over all courts and personnel.

    Original Description:

    Maceda v. Vasquez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a criminal complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against a judge for allegedly falsifying certificates of service. 2) The judge claimed he had been granted an extension to decide cases by the Supreme Court and that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction. 3) The Supreme Court held that where a criminal complaint against a judge arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer to the Supreme Court, which has exclusive power of administrative supervision over all courts and personnel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    246 views2 pages

    Maceda v. Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 8SgE99
    1) The case involved a criminal complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against a judge for allegedly falsifying certificates of service. 2) The judge claimed he had been granted an extension to decide cases by the Supreme Court and that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction. 3) The Supreme Court held that where a criminal complaint against a judge arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer to the Supreme Court, which has exclusive power of administrative supervision over all courts and personnel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Section 6

    MACEDA V. VASQUEZ
    FACTS: Respondent Napoleon A. Abiera of the Public Attorney's Office
    alleged in his affidavit-complaint filed with the Office of the
    Ombudsman, that petitioner had falsified his Certificate of Service 1
    dated February 6, 1989, by certifying "that all civil and criminal cases
    which have been submitted for decision or determination for a period
    of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before January 31,
    1998," when in truth and in fact, petitioner knew that no decision had
    been rendered in five (5) civil and ten (10) criminal cases that have
    been submitted for decision. Abiera further alleged that petitioner
    similarly falsified his certificates of service for the months of February,
    April, May, June, July and August, all in 1989; and the months
    beginning January up to September 1990, or for a total of seventeen
    (17) months.
    On the other hand, petitioner contends that he had been granted by
    this Court an extension of ninety (90) days to decide the
    aforementioned cases. Petitioner also contends that the Ombudsman
    has no jurisdiction over said case despite this Court's ruling in Orap vs.
    Sandiganbayan,, 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:
    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 the referral should be made first
    to the SC
    HELD: Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the case and refer the same
    to the Court or appropriate action.
    1. NO
    2. NO
    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.

    The Court disagrees with the first Part of petitioner's basic argument.
    There is nothing in the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to
    offenses committed by a judge 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.
    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.
    RATIO: Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively
    vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts
    and the lowest municipal trial court clerk. 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 court personnel, from the Presiding
    Justice of the Court of Appeals down to hem 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.

    You might also like