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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Petitioners Vs Vs Respondents The Solicitor General: en Banc

    Uploaded by

    Gayle Omisol
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate a complaint against a judge for unduly delaying a case. The complaint was administrative in nature as it involved determining if the judge followed proper procedures. As mandated by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive authority over administrative supervision of all courts and personnel. Therefore, the Ombudsman must refer the complaint to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

    Copyright:

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

    Petitioners Vs Vs Respondents The Solicitor General: en Banc

    Uploaded by

    Gayle Omisol
    68 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate a complaint against a judge for unduly delaying a case. The complaint was administrative in nature as it involved determining if the judge followed proper procedures. As mandated by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive authority over administrative supervision of all courts and personnel. Therefore, the Ombudsman must refer the complaint to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

    Original Title

    125840-1996-Dolalas_v._Office_of_the_Ombudsman-Mindanao

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate a complaint against a judge for unduly delaying a case. The complaint was administrative in nature as it involved determining if the judge followed proper procedures. As mandated by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive authority over administrative supervision of all courts and personnel. Therefore, the Ombudsman must refer the complaint to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    68 views4 pages

    Petitioners Vs Vs Respondents The Solicitor General: en Banc

    Uploaded by

    Gayle Omisol
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate a complaint against a judge for unduly delaying a case. The complaint was administrative in nature as it involved determining if the judge followed proper procedures. As mandated by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive authority over administrative supervision of all courts and personnel. Therefore, the Ombudsman must refer the complaint to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 118808. December 24, 1996.]

    JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS, EVELYN K. OBIDO AND WILBERTO


    B. CARRIEDO , petitioners, vs . THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE
    OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO and BENJAMIN VILLARANTE, JR. ,
    respondents.

    The Solicitor General for respondents.

    SYLLABUS

    1. POLITICAL LAW; JUDICIARY; SUPREME COURT; MANDATED UNDER THE 1987


    CONSTITUTION TO ASSUME ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER ALL COURTS AND
    THE PERSONNEL THEREOF. — It must be borne in mind that the resolution of the
    administrative charge of unduly delaying the disposition of the said criminal case involves
    the determination of whether, in resolving the alarms and scandals case, petitioner-judge
    acted in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Rules of Court and in the
    Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the ideals embodied in the Code of Judicial
    Conduct. Such is clearly an administrative matter. Unquestionably, this Court is mandated
    under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution to assume administrative supervision
    over all courts and the personnel thereof. This Court, in the case of Sanz Maceda v.
    Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464, held that: "Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution
    exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court
    personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Courts of Appeals down to the lowest
    municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can
    oversee the judge's 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. Public respondent Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of
    petitioner on the powers granted to it by the Constitution, for such a justi cation not only
    runs counter to the speci c 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." cSATDC

    RESOLUTION

    ROMERO , J : p

    Under consideration is the petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary
    injunction and/or restraining order dated January 16, 1995. Petitioners, Judge Ana Maria I.
    Dolalas, Evelyn K. Obido and Wilberto B. Carriedo — Presiding Judge, Clerk of Court and
    Clerk II, respectively of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kabasalan, Zamboanga del Sur,
    were charged "administratively" by private respondent Benjamin Villarante, Jr. for
    "miscarriage of justice, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, unnecessary delay in the
    administration of justice and for failure to prosecute Criminal Case no. 5881 for an
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
    unreasonable length of time" before public respondent O ce of the Ombudsman-
    Mindanao.
    The letter-complaint addressed to the O ce of the Ombudsman-Mindanao dated
    July 6, 1994 arose out of said criminal case of alarms and scandals led against private
    respondent by a police o cer. Private respondent alleged that after submitting his
    counter-a davit relative to the said criminal case before petitioner's court, there has been
    no pre-conference, arraignment or pre-trial held or conducted by petitioner judge. Private
    respondent claimed that the said criminal case was maliciously filed by one P/Sgt. Salutillo
    in connivance with petitioner judge in order to discourage the former from instituting a
    criminal complaint against said police o cer's men for abuse of authority and police
    brutality with physical injury. 1
    Private respondent also claimed that said criminal case led against him has been
    unnecessarily delayed in that P/Sgt. Salutillo and petitioner-judge "totally failed to
    prosecute" their own malicious action within a reasonable length of time thus prejudicing
    the constitutional right of the former to an impartial investigation and a fair and speedy
    trial. Said criminal case against private respondent also held in abeyance his own
    complaint against the police officers allegedly to his prejudice. 2
    On the basis of the letter-complaint led by herein private respondent, Graft
    Investigation O cer I Melinda Alconsel Dayanghirang of public respondent O ce of the
    Ombudsman-Mindanao directed petitioners to submit their respective counter-a davits.
    Petitioners' motion to dismiss dated September 14, 1994 as well as their motion for
    reconsideration dated December 2, 1994 were denied by public respondent, hence the
    petition before this Court.
    In this petition, petitioners pray that for the preservation of their rights pending this
    proceeding, a preliminary injunction and/or restraining order be issued against the O ce
    of the Ombudsman-Mindanao commanding said o ce to desist from further proceeding
    with the case against the petitioners. A temporary restraining order was issued by this
    Court in a resolution dated May 23, 1995.
    Petitioner was basically being charged with "undue delay in the disposition of the
    said criminal case" led before petitioner's court. The issue posed, therefore, in this
    petition is whether or not the O ce of the Ombudsman may take cognizance of the
    complaint against petitioner for purposes of investigation and possible prosecution in
    accordance with its mandate under Section 13 (1) and (2) of Article XI of the 1987
    Constitution 3 for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 4
    Petitioner-judge contends that the O ce of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to
    initiate an investigation into the alleged "undue delay in the disposition of the case" as said
    charge relates to a judge's performance of her o cial duties over which the Supreme
    Court has administrative control and supervision, as mandated under Section 6, Rule VIII of
    the 1987 Constitution. 5 Public respondent Ombudsman-Mindanao, however, contends
    that referral to the Supreme Court is not essential in this case as what will be investigated
    is not whether there was undue delay in the disposition of a simple criminal case for ve
    years, which it admits is administrative in nature. It added that what is sought to be
    determined by the investigation is whether or not any undue delay in the disposition of the
    alarms and scandals case resulted in injury to private respondent through manifest
    partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence and/or undue advantage to any
    party, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com


    This Court agrees with petitioner-judge. The complaint against petitioner-judge
    before the O ce of the Ombudsman is basically administrative in nature. In essence,
    petitioner-judge is being charged with having violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 6 and Rule 3.05,
    Canon 3 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
    It must be borne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge of unduly
    delaying the disposition of the said criminal case involves the determination of whether, in
    resolving the alarms and scandals case, petitioner-judge acted in accordance with the
    guidelines provided in the Rules of Court and in the Administrative Circulars in pursuance
    of the ideals embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such is clearly an administrative
    matter. Unquestionably, this Court is mandated under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987
    Constitution to assume administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
    thereof.
    This Court, in the case of Sanz Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464, held that:
    "Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the
    Supreme Court 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. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can
    oversee the judge's 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.

    Public respondent Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of


    petitioner on the powers granted to it by the Constitution, for such a justi cation
    not only runs counter to the speci c 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."

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The O ce of the Ombudsman-Mindanao is


    DIRECTED to REFER the complaint led by private respondent Benjamin Villarante, Jr. to
    this Court for appropriate action.
    SO ORDERED.
    Narvasa, C .J ., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan,
    Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr ., JJ ., concur.
    Vitug, J ., on official leave.

    Footnotes

    1. Complaint, p. 10, Rollo.


    2. Supra.

    3. Sec. 13. The O ce of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and
    duties:

    (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
    o cial, employee, o ce or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
    unjust, improper, or inefficient.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com


    (2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public o cial or employee of the
    Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
    government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and
    expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or
    impropriety in the performance of duties.
    xxx xxx xxx

    4. R.A. No. 3019.


    5. Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
    personnel thereof.

    6. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.


    7. A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the periods
    required.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

    You might also like