Judge Caoibes, Jr. v.

Ombudsman
FACTS: The present case involves 2 members of Judiciary
who were entangled in a fight within court premises over a
piece of office furniture
Issue: WON an administrative case based on the act subject
of the complaint before an Ombudsman is already pending
with the Court should still be referred to the Supreme Court.
Held: YES. The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and
by itself whether a complaint against a judge or court
employee
involves
an
administrative
matter.
The
Ombudsman is duty bound to refer to the Supreme Court
the determination as to whether an administrative aspect is
involved in all cases against judges and court personnel filed
before it.
Ratio:
Under Sec. 6 of Art. VIII of the Constitution, it is the
Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative
supervision over all courts and personnel.
The Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he
is informed of it. He should also give DUE RESPECT for and
RECOGNITION of the administrative authority of the Court.
The Ombudsman cannot dictate nor bind the Court to its
findings because to do this is to deprive the Court of its
administrative prerogative and arrogate unto itself a power
not constitutionally sanctioned.
From the Presiding Justice of CA down to the lowest MTC
court clerk, it is only the SC that can oversee their
compliance with all laws and take proper administrative
action against them if they commit any violation.
No other branch of govt may intrude into this
powers without running afoul the doctrine of
separation of powers.