CAIOBES v.

OMBUDSMAN

Petition for certiorari, asking for the reversal of the Orders on Aug 22 qnd Dec 22 of the Office of the
ombudsman and issuance of writ of injunction or TRO enjoining the Office of the Ombudsman from
taking further action in the implementation of the challenged orders.

FACTS:

May 23 1997: Respondent Judge Florentino M. Alumbres of Branch 255 of the RTC of Las Pinas
City filed a criminal complaint before the office of the Ombudsman for physical injuries,
malicious mischief, and assault upon a person in authority and prayed that criminal charges be
filed before the Sandiganbayan against petitioner.
June 13 1997: Respondent Judge filed an administrative complaint, before the Supreme Court
praying for the dismissal of the petitioner from the judiciary on the ground of grave misconduct
or conduct unbecoming a judicial officer based on the same facts in his first petition.
Office of Ombudsman ordered petitioner to file a counter-affidavit but instead, petitioner filed
an Ex Parte Motion for Referral to the Honorable Supreme Court praying that the office of
Ombudsman hold its investigation and refer the same to SC. Because he was claiming that the
SC NOT the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to make a preliminary determination of
the respective culpability of petitioner and respondent Judge who are both under its exclusive
supervision and control.
o August 22, 1997: Office of Ombudsman denied referral to the SC. Invoked Sec. 15(1) of
RA 6770 office of the Ombudsman held that it is within its jurisdiction to investigate
criminal charges of respondent Judge against petitioner.
o Petitioner filed MR maintaining that Office of Ombudsman should either refer the case
to the SC or wait for the decision of the SC re: the administrative case filed against him
Otherwise, the petitioner argues that it would result to a situation where the
Ombudsman will file criminal charges against him while the SC declares him without
fault. DENIED by Ombudsman (Dec 22 1997)

ISSUE/HELD: W/N the Office of the Ombudsman should defer action on the criminal case filed against
petitioner pending the resolution of the administrative filed against the petitioner in the SC YES

Maceda v. Vasquez Court ruled that the Ombudsman must defer action on a criminal
complaint against a judge or a court employee where the same arises fr their administrative
duties, and refer the case to the Court for determination.
Solg Gen argues that legal basis of Ombudsman which grants to it the aforequoted powers is not
tantamount to giving is exclusive authority.
o Sec. 15 (1) RA 6770 provides that it has PRIMARY and NOT EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over
graft and corruption cases and felonies committed by public officers.
o Sanchez v. Demetriou Ombudsmans power under Sec. 15(1) is NOT an exclusive
authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority.
 Court invoked Sec. 6 of Art. VIII of the Constitution stating that the Ombudsman is duty bound
to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, to be referred to the SC for
determination.
The Ombudsman in invoking Sec. 15 of RA 6770 and in refusing to take cognizance of the case in
favour of the Court, is to deprive the Court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives
which impinges on judicial independence.
Only the Supreme Court has power of administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel (From Justices to clerks) with regards to their compliance with all laws and to take the
proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. NO OTHER
branch of government may intrude in this power without violating doctrine of sOP.

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS GRANTED. Ombudsman is directed to dismiss complaint filed by

Respondent Judge Alumbres and refer the same to the Court.