You are on page 1of 11

Article VIII

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

People vs. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172

In 1970, a group of armed persons set fire to various inhabited houses in Ora Centro and Ora Este,
both in Bantay, Ilocos Sur. The prosecutors charged 17 men, together with 82 other unidentified
persons, with the crime of arson, at the Court of First Instance of Vigan, Ilocos Sur.

The Secretary of Justice issued Administrative Order No. 226, authorizing Judge Gutierrez to transfer
the criminal cases to the Circuit Criminal Court, “in the interest of justice and pursuant to RA 5179, as
implemented by AO 258 and 274.” The prosecution invoked the Administrative Orders, since the
witnesses refused to testify in the court sitting in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, where they felt their lives would
be endangered:

 about 82 of the armed men are still unidentified and at large
 one of the accused, Vincent Crisologo, belongs to an influential family in the province, son of
the Congressman for the First District of Ilocos Sur and of the lady Governor
 the promotion and confirmation of Judge Gutierrez from Clerk of Court to Judge of the Court of
First Instance was actively supported by Congressman and Governor Crisologo, parents of
accused Vincent Crisologo

The accused vigorously opposed such transfer. The respondent judge declined the transfer sought, on
the ground that Administrative Order No. 226 merely authorized the court below, but did not require
or command it, to transfer the cases in question, and denied that the circumstances justified any
such transfer. The prosecution resorted to the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari and mandamus, so
the cases may be tried either at La Union or Baguio City.


1. Whether the Secretary of Justice has the power to determine what court should hear specific
2. Whether the Supreme Court could transfer the trial to another place
3. Whether the circumstances warrant a transfer of the trial to another place

Decision: Judge Gutierrez was correct in regarding the Administrative Orders as merely directory
rather than mandatory, but he erred in denying that the circumstances justified the transfer.

1. The Secretary of Justice has no power to determine what court should hear specific cases. Any
such power trenches upon the time-honored separation of the Executive and the Judiciary; it
would endanger the rights and immunities of the accused or civil party. It could be a means of
predetermining the outcome of individual cases, so as to produce a result in harmony with the
Administration’s preferences.
2. Judicial power connotes certain incidental and inherent attributes reasonably necessary
for an effective administration of justice. The courts “can by appropriate means do all
things necessary to preserve and maintain every quality needful to make the judiciary an
effective institution of government.” One of these incidental and inherent powers of courts is
that of transferring the trial of cases from one court to another of equal rank in a
neighboring site, whenever the imperative of securing a fair and impartial trial, or of
preventing a miscarriage of justice, so demands. Hence, the Supreme Court possesses
inherent power and jurisdiction to transfer the trial and disposition of a case from one
court to another. [Note: this case occurred before the 1987 Constitution]
3. In this case there are sufficient and adequate reasons for the transfer of the hearing of the
criminal cases to another place in the interest of truth and justice. The fear expressed by the
witnesses cannot be considered fanciful and unfounded when account is taken of the
circumstances. Such refusal necessitates transferring the place of trial to a site outside of
Ilocos Sur, if the State is to be given a fair chance to present its side of the case

On September 16. their safety could be jeopardized. The municipal court found probable cause against the accused and ordered their arrest. most of the accused remained at large. it is but logical that the court should have power to decide where the balance of convenience or inconvenience lies. In case of doubt. and to determine the most suitable place of the trial according to the exigencies of truth and impartial justice. vs. Sola Post under Bail . The holding of the trial in a particular place is more a matter of venue. Diggings made in a canefield yielded two common graves containing the 7 bodies. as in the case at bar. it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue. The prosecution must be given an opportunity to present. Ramos: the purpose of the rule invoked by accused respondents was “not to… cause [the defendant] great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other evidence in another place. within a reasonable time. Seven (7) separate complaints for murder were thus filed against Pablo Sola and 18 other persons.S. Cunanan: the jurisdiction of a Court of First Instance in the Philippines is limited to certain well-defined territory and they cannot take jurisdiction of persons charged with one offense committed outside of that limited territory. Issues: . rather than jurisdiction. There have been reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families of the witnesses. because it is a long-standing rule of criminal procedure that one who commits a crime is amenable therefor only in the jurisdiction where the crime is committed.The requirements for proper jurisdiction have been satisfied by the filing of the criminal case in question with the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. U. the court granted them the right to post bail for their temporary release. Facts: CFI Negros Occidental issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the deceased bodies of 7 persons believed in the possession of the accused Pablo Sola in his hacienda at Sta.” Where the convenience of the accused is opposed by that of the prosecution. Isabel. Kabankalan. It is just a means to an end. The witnesses in the murder cases informed the prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan. without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. Negros Occidental. all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. the 332nd PC/INP Company proceeded to the place of Sola. Beltran vs. 1980 armed with the above warrant. in which province the offenses charged were committed. However. People vs. Secondary Notes: The respondents vigorously contend that a transfer of the trial site cannot be made. Pablo Sola and two others have since been released from detention. Political Law Case Digests . Powers of the SC: Order Change of Venue The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. The purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. At least 2 of the accused are official with power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In addition.

R. Whether or not change of venue is proper 2. to Camps Crame. Aguinaldo or Olivas. Right of bail The bail bonds must be cancelled and the case remanded to the sala of Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio for such hearing. Because of this fear. Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial. the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present. within a reasonable time. Sola. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. 1981) People vs Pilotin GR No L-35377-78 31 July 1975 Facts: Vincent Crisologo through counsel filed a verified motion praying for the transfer to the New Bilibid Prisons or. However. L-56158- 64 March 17. alternatively. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. They are afraid they would be killed on their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. Whether or not the bail bond should be cancelled for failure to abide by the basic requirement that the prosecution be heard in a case where the accused is charged with a capital offense. the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity. and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been established. No. the case proceeds with this discussion: To compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a mockery of the judicial process. and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground. all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civilaction. they may either refuse to testify or testify falsely to save their lives. there would be a violation of procedural due process. Justice. is due to the accuser also. It does not suffice. prior to bail being granted. as asserted herein. though due to the accused. that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. The witnesses in the case are fearful of their lives. G. of the place of trial of Criminal . We are to keep the balance true. If. (People vs. Held: Change of venue Change of venue has become moot and academic with the transfer of the case to Bacolod City. This norm which is of the very essence of due process as the embodiment of justice requires that the prosecution be given the opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence of guilt.1.

In the Philippines. Art. or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. on 22 January 1973. and shall not diminish. struck down anti- abortion law in the United States by holding that the right to abortion is impliedly allowed in the US Constitution. Limitations of the Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court (1) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases (2) They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade . and procedure in all courts. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speed disposition of cases. 154380. Roe vs. Orbecido(GR No.Case No. pleading. Issue: Whether or not there would be miscarriage of justice if the place of trial was not changed. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. pleading. the admission to the practice of law. hostile sentiment against the accused at the place of trial is a justification for transfer of venue The change of venue involves not merely the change of the place of hearing but also the transfer of the expediente of Criminal Case No. the Integrated Bar and legal assistance to the underprivileged. including his father were murdered in that vicinity. practice. xxx Judicial legislation takes place when a court steps in to craft missing parts or to fill in the gaps in laws or when it oversteps its discretional boundaries and goes beyond the law to coin doctrines or principles where none was before. practice. As justificatory ground. there is likewise an increasing perception that our courts are guilty of judicial legislation. and procedure in all courts. wherein he. VIII of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. which provides: Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court Section 5 (5). Wade. Some of the adherents of the Crisologos. wherein the US Supreme Court. Ilocos Sur. shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. Rule making Power Section 5. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. increase. as sole defendant. the admission to the practice of law. 5 October 2005) has met several questions as it allegedly expanded the concept enunciated in Article 26 of the Family Code. The case of Republic vs. is charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. the Integrated Bar. 3949 to another court. he alleged that his life would be in jeopardy if he were to be confined in the Vigan municipal jail during the trial because there are many political enemies of the Crisologo family in that vicinity. Decision: Petition accepted. 3949 of the municipal court of Vigan.

Constitution). to pursue a course of action reasonably calculated to bring out the truth. 5. (5) The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. (Andres vs. 469 SCRA 416). It is fundamentally a procedural law. liberty or state security are involved. 479 SCRA 594) (3) Where substantial and important issues await resolution. GR 159593. Heirs of Santiago. Migrant Pagbilao Corp.R. In that investigation. (Pagbilao. Zaratan. invoking section 11 of rule 108. prejudice or personal hostility. 12. Feb. filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga after he had been bound over to that court for trial. What constitutes and good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon courts. (4) The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic one. and the justice of the peace forwarded the case to the court of first instance. LUCERO G. V. Vicenta Vda. 2007) (2) To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of substantial justice is not a magical incantation that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. the accused's counsel announced his intention to renounce his right to present evidence. (Mindanao Savings Loan Asso. the justice of the peace informed him of the charges and asked him if he pleaded guilty or not guilty. and the objection was sustained. Said section defines the bounds of the defendant's right in the preliminary investigation. June 30. the court of origin. The fiscal and the private prosecutor objected.. upon which he entered the plea of not guilty. 1948 FACTS: The petitioner herein. ISSUE: Whether or not the Justice of the Peace court of Masantol committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the accused's motion to return the record. praying that the record of the case be remanded to the justice of the peace court of Masantol. or from passion. supra) (4) When transcendental matters of life. an accused in a criminal case. to be exercised at the pleasure of the court. VIII. increase. 2006). De Flores. there is nothing in it or any other law restricting the authority. (CIR v. inherent in a court of justice. in order that the petitioner might cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses in connection with their testimony. Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules: (a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances (b) merits of the case (c) cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules (d) a lack of ay showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory (e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento v. 5[5]. Art. L-2068. October 20. CA. BUSTOS vs. Then his counsel moved that the complainant present her evidence so that she and her witnesses could be examined and cross-examined in the manner and form provided by law. or modify substantive rights (Sec. 127 SCRA 802) Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules (1) When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. but is the duty of the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion. No. In view thereof. (Cu-Unjieng v.(3) They shall not diminish. Oct. assisted by counsel. DOMINADOR B. The Supreme Court that section 11 of Rule 108 does not curtail the sound discretion of the justice of the peace on the matter. GR 167471. ANTONIO G. GR 170354. appeared at the preliminary investigation. . 2006). Cabrera. The accused. HELD: Evidence is the mode and manner of proving competent facts and circumstances on which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial proceedings. on the strength of which warrant was issued for the arrest of the accused.

namely. The minority went farther than the majority and denied even any discretion on the part of the justice of the peace or judge holding the preliminary investigation to compel the complainant and his witnesses to testify anew. 1606). 3. to the CA.D. and thereafter to the SC.e. who. under the decree creating the Sandiganbayan. whether a private citizen as petitioner is or a public official. Justice Makasiar (concurring & dissenting) Persons who are charged with estafa or malversation of funds not belonging to the government or any of its instrumentalities or agencies are guaranteed the right to appeal to two appellate courts – first. it must not be limited to existing conditions only. and must apply equally to each member of the class. that a different procedure for the accused therein. instead of the traditional two chances. industry and integrity of the trial judge. i. P. 1973. The constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court. by certiorari to the SC. No. is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Then again. To repeat. ISSUE: Whether or not the creation of Sandiganbayan violates equal protection insofar as appeals would be concerned. The 1973 Constitution had provided for the creation of a special court that shall have original jurisdiction over cases involving public officials charged with graft and corruption. In other criminal cases involving offenses not as serious as graft and corruption. He was accused before the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents committed in connivance with his other co-accused. It follows that those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have been aware as far back as January 17. by providing that the decisions of the Sandiganbayan can only be reviewed by the SC through certiorari. par 3 of Sec 7 of PD 1606. . decisions in the Sandiganbayan are reached by a unanimous decision from 3 justices – a showing that decisions therein are more conceivably carefully reached than other trial courts. the Sandiganbayan. The ultimate decisive factors are the intellectual competence. Rufino Nuñez vs Sandiganbayan & the People of the Philippines “Equal Protection” – Creation of the Sandiganbayan Nuñez assails the validity of the PD 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan as amended by PD 1606. Sec. all public officials. HELD: The SC ruled against Nuñez. It is the claim of Nuñez that PD1486. Upon the foregoing considerations. But a review by two appellate tribunals of the same case certainly ensures better justice to the accused and to the people. which can appraise the evidence and the law with greater objectivity. are only allowed one appeal – to the SC (par. all questions of fact and of law are reviewed. when the present Constitution came into force. precisely in response to a problem. first to the CA and thereafter to the SC. – appeal likewise was shrunk and limited only to questions of law. and there is only one chance to appeal conviction. Three judges sitting on the same case does not ensure a quality of justice better than that meted out by a trial court presided by one judge. 7. is violative of the due process. and then by the SC. dishonesty in the public service.The foregoing decision was rendered by a divided court. likewise limits the reviewing power of the SC only to question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.” Further still. equal protection. in several cases. there is greater guarantee of justice in criminal cases when the trial court’s judgment is subject to review by two appellate tribunals. the present petition is dismissed with costs against the petitioner. as amended.. first by the CA. Estafa and malversation of private funds are on the same category as graft and corruption committed by public officers. because – appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion. the classification therein set forth met the standard requiring that it “must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences. He claims that the Sandiganbayan proceedings violates Nuñez’s right to equal protection. it must be germane to the purposes of the law. the urgency of which cannot be denied. and not questions of fact nor findings or conclusions of the trial court. while all other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both law and facts and to two appellate courts. and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. excluding a review of the facts and trial evidence. The fact that the Sandiganbayan is a collegiate trial court does not generate any substantial distinction to validate this invidious discrimination. Further. detachment and impartiality unaffected as they are by views and prejudices that may be engendered during the trial.

.. Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. Act No. it will not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner. 972 is constitutional. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. Enrique Zaldivar vs Raul Gonzalez 166 SCRA 316 – Legal Ethics – Contemptuous Language – Duty of a Lawyer Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%. or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act. the law was passed in 1952. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. in effect. the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional. in 1952. Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations. The portion that was stricken down was based under the following reasons: The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World War II. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice of law and. The . It was also struck down for allowing partial passing. 534 FACTS: Congress passed Rep. Art. No. to take effect in 1953.. “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955. 19. 1973 Constitution). and The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation. alter and supplement the Rules of Court. a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the said candidates.71% 1953……………………. thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law.” ISSUE: Whether of not.74% Provided however. likewise violates the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused.Limiting the power of review by the SC of convictions by the Sandiganbayan only to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The law is. As to the portion declared in force and effect. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari. R. in excess of legislative power to repeal.” Section 1 provided the following passing marks: 1946-1951………………70% 1952 ……………………. 972. the Court could not muster enough votes to declare it void. not designed to substitute the judgment of the court on who can practice law. Moreover.72% 1954……………………. As per its title. The title of the law was. IN RE CUNANAN 94 PHIL. As to Section1. The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum norms. while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force and effect. The same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter. Hence.73% 1955…………………….A. IV. therefore. RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. which presumption can only be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt (Sec.

crimes against public order as defined in the Revised Penal Code. in acting an applications for search warrants in the campaign against loose firearms and other serious crimes affecting peace and order. is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations against Zaldivar. that the Supreme Court’s issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta the “rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. His statements necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. In the case at bar. All applications for search warrants relating to violations of the Anti-Subversion Act. are of no relation to the Zaldivar case. 1987 TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS. these amended guidelines in the issuance of a search warrant are issued: 1. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. that he was only exercising his freedom of speech. There is a need for prompt action on such applications for search warrant. is also a Special Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. Gonzalez. 19 August 4. that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court. even attaching notes. through the Court. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. the entire system of administration of justice in the country. that not less than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to “go slow” on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.Supreme Court. The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of law. Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were true. The responsibility of Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer. Accordingly. apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court. Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. his statements. HELD: Yes. ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt. Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and. particularly the one where he alleged that members of the Supreme Court approached him. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme Court. He also said. Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course”. The Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. Such statements constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. What Gonzalez seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression. like all constitutional freedoms. as amended. CIRCULAR NO. illegal possession of firearms and/or . METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS. acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations against Zaldivar. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS SUBJECT: AMENDED GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES ON APPLICATIONS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSIONS OF FIREARMS AND OTHER SERIOUS CRIMES FILED IN METRO MANILA COURTS AND OTHER COURTS WITH MULTIPLE SALAS This Court has received reports of delays while awaiting raffle.

Applications filed after office hours. 1985. may require thet . In the absence of the Executive Judge or Vice-Executive Judge. All lawyers are subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. 2. payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same. He is free to attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing.ammunition and violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. Any judge acting on such application shall immediately and without delay personally conduct the examination of the applicant and his witnesses to prevent the possible leakage of information. and guidelines for the issuance of search warrants provided for in this Court's Administrative Circular No. Section 24. but in such cases the applicant shall certify and state the facts under oath. Article III. 4. (Sgd. to the satisfaction of the judge. safeguards. dated October 1. The Rules of Court only compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional freedom to associate. The Supreme Court in order to further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services. the application may be taken cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of the Court where the application is filed. as amended. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. Hence. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP.) CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE IN RE EDILLON FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. 3. shall no longer be raffled and shall immediately be taken cognizance of and acted upon by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court. he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the Constitution. of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP. and its issuance is urgent. This Circular shall take effect immediately. 2. during Saturdays. Metropolitan Trial Court. Sundays and holidays. Please be guided accordingly. the Vice-Executive Judge shall take cognizance of and personally act on the same. and that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admitted personally antagonistic. to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. shall likewise be taken cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of the court having jurisdiction of the place to be searched. 13. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. August 4. He shall observe the procedures. In the absence of the Executive Judge. ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect. 1987. 5. and Municipal Trial Court under whose jurisdiction the place to be searched is located.

The CSC filed a motion for reconsideration in the CA but was denied. However.03%. ISSUE: Does the CSC’s disciplinary jurisdiction extend to court personnel? RULING: The instant petition is DENIED. Vasquez (1993) Bonifacio Maceda falsified his certificate of service saying he had submitted the decisions for all his civil and criminal cases. suspension. disbarment. when he had not submitted anything. was admitted to take the examination. in which the CA ruled in favor of the respondent. verification and comparison of the pictures attached to the Picture Seat Plan and the identification card of Andal brought by Vito showed dissimilarity in the facial features. Civil Service Commission National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) rendered judgment finding the respondent guilty of dishonesty and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service. holds the position of Security Guard II in the Sandiganbayan.the cost of the regulatory program – the lawyers. ANDAL. 185749. His clerk reported him to the Ombudsman. Only the SC can oversee judges’ compliance with the law and take proper administrative action. Andal. By virtue of this power. it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s administrative compliance with all laws. not the Ombudsman. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over the matter. and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues. Furthermore. Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. No. the respondent appealed. Aggrieved. for the filing of the appropriate administrative case against him. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 6. The right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. Maceda v. CSC vs. rules and regulations. No other branch of government may intrude into this power. G. respondent. And if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty designed to enforce its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary. December 16. without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. the standard procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint against a judicial employee before the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court. 2009 FACTS: Herminigildo L. it was denied. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Vito who claimed to have been authorized by respondent to secure the results of the examination went to do so. The Supreme Court also emphasized that in case of violation of the Civil Service Law by a court personnel. thus: Sec. when Arlene S. and the result showed that he passed with the rate of 81. however. .R. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. He filed an application to take the Career Service Professional Examination-Computer Assisted Test (CSPE-CAT). the present petition for reversal of the decision of the CA. the Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission. Hence. 6. Judges are liable under the Supreme Court. He then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Sec. the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court’s power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Art. in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. from the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. petitioner Maceda knew that no decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have been submitted for decision. Issue: Whether or not the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SC’s constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts Held: A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct and under Sec. the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the SC for determination whether said judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.Facts: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of service by certifying that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision for a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before January 31. when in truth and in fact. VIII. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of service for 17 months. 1989. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. By virtue of this power. Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties. and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power. . it is only the SC that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws. 1. In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by the Court with regard to his certificates of service. and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act. without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.