Fabian vs Desierto

G.R. No. 129742

December 14, 1998

Facts:

Petitioner, Teresita Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT Construction
Development Corporation (PROMAT) while private respondent, Nestor V. Agustin was the incumbent
District Engineer - Facilities Management Engineering Division (FMED).

PROMAT participated in the bidding for government construction project including those under the
FMED, and private respondent, reportedly taking advantage of his official position, enticed petitioner into a
passionate relationship. When petitioner tried to terminate their relationship, private respondent refused
and resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of employing acts of harassment, intimidation and
threats. Petitioner eventually filed an administrative case (OMB-Adm. Case No. 0-95-0411) against private
respondent in a letter-complaint dated July 24, 1995.

The said complaint sought the dismissal of private respondent for violation of Section 19, Republic
Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service
Decree), with an ancillary prayer for his preventive suspension. A resolution was then issued finding private Commented [u1]: Charges referred to may be
respondent guilty. The case later led to an appeal to the Respondent Ombudsman (Hon. Aniano A. included under the category of oppression, misconduct,
Desierto - who withdrawn himself - and transferred the case to the Respondent Deputy Ombudsman and disgraceful or immoral conduct.
(Hon. Jesus F. Guerrero). The deputy ruled in favor of Agustin and in the order absolved the private
respondents from the administrative charges.

Hence, this petition for certiorari by petitioner citing Sec. 27 of RA No. 6770. Commented [u2]: RA No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of
1989)
Issue: Sec. 27:
“In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders,
W/N administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Ombudsman may be appealed to the
(W/N Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6770 is constitutional.) Supreme Court by filing a
petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of
the written notice of the order, directive or decision or
Ruling: denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance
with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.”
No, administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman cannot validly authorize an appeal to the Supreme Court.
(No, it is unconstitutional.)
Commented [u3R2]: RESPONDENT’S
CONTENTION:
Art. VI, Sect. 30 of the 1987 Constitution provides: “No law shall be passed increasing the appellate The Office of the Ombudsman is empowered by the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and consent.” Constitution and the law to promulgate its own rules of
procedure.
In this case, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to the Supreme
Court as it would consequently violate the proscription in the aforesaid provision in the Constitution. Article XI, Section 13(8), of the 1987 Constitution
(Accordingly, SC has no jurisdiction over petitions for review of decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman provides, among others, that the Office of the
imposing administrative disciplinary sanctions.) Ombudsman can "promulgate its rules of procedure
and exercise such other powers or perform such
functions or duties as may be provided by law."
 Namuhe vs Ombudsman
G.R. No. 124965
October 29, 1998

Facts:

Petitioners Romeo C. Namuhe and Romulo H. Mabunga were the district engineer and
construction section chief, respectively, of the Ifugao Engineering District (IED) in Lagawe, Ifugao.
Additionally, petitioners Tel-Equen, Ramirez and Antonio were employed at the Mountain Province
Engineering District (MPED) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in Bontoc, Mountain
Province.

The petitioners were charged with administrative case docketed as OMB-0-91-0430 for dishonesty,
falsification of official documents, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of office rules and
regulations and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in connection with the
purported public bidding held for the Bailey bridge components for use in Mainit, Mountain Province.

Hence, they filed three separate petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court after having been dismissed from the government service by the Office of the
Ombudsman (OMB) and upon having been denied of reconsideration. They questioned the factual findings
and conclusion reached by the OMB in the administrative cases filed against them. Commented [u4]: PETITIONERS’ COTENTIONS:
Tel-Equen - evidence against him is weak and
Issue: inadmissible
Ramirez and Antonio - there was a misappreciation
W/N the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over appeals of administrative disciplinary decisions of the of pertinent facts
OMB over the present petition. Mabunga and Namuhe - the findings against them
have no factual and legal basis
Ruling:

No, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over appeals of administrative disciplinary decisions of
the OMB in the present petition.

Art. VI, Sect. 30 of the 1987 Constitution provides: “No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and consent.”

In the present case, instead of dismissing the petitions for lack of jurisdiction, the court referred and
transferred the petitions for final disposition to the Court of Appeals which shall pro hac vice consider them
petitions for review under Rule 43, without prejudice to its requiring the parties to submit such amended or
supplemental pleadings and additional documents or records as it may deem necessary and proper in the
premises.
 SBMA vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 125416
September 26, 1996

Facts:

Petitioner, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), instituted a petition for certiorari and
prohibition, seeking to nullify the respondent Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) Ruling and
Resolution No. 2848 denying petitioner's plea to stop the holding of a local initiative and referendum on
the proposition to recall Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993, of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Morong, Bataan.

SBMA was created March 1992 under RA 7227 to implement the declared national policy of Commented [u5]: "Sec. 12. Subic Special Economic
converting the Subic military reservation into alternative productive uses. On November 24, 1992, the Zone.
American navy turned over the Subic military reservation to the Philippine government. Immediately,
petitioner (SBMA) commenced the implementation of its task, particularly the preservation of the seaports, Created a Special Economic and Free-port Zone
airports, buildings, houses and other installations left by the American navy. consisting of the ff:
City of Olongapo and the Municipality of Subic,
On April 1993, Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan, passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang Province of Zambales,
10, Serye 1993, expressing its absolute concurrence as required under Sec. 12 of RA 7227 to join the Subic Subic Naval Base, (land area)
Territorial jurisdiction of the Municipalities of Morong
Special Economic Zone. On May 24, 1993, private respondents Garcia and his companions filed a
and Hermosa, Province of Bataan,
petition to annul said resolution and that Morong only be allowed to join the SSEZ provided that certain
conditions are met. Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Act,
each local government unit shall submit its resolution of
The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong acted upon the petition by promulgating Pambayang concurrence to join the Subic Special Economic Zone
Kapasyahan Blg.18, Serye 1993 requesting Philippine Congress to amend certain provisions of RA 7227. to the Office of the President.
Not satisfied, private respondents resorted to their power of initiative under the Local Government Code
(LGC) of 1991 which the COMELEC denied on the ground that the subject thereof was merely a resolution
and not an ordinance.

On February 1, 1995 President issued Proclamation No. 532 defining the metes and bounds of the
SSEZ, including therein the portion of the former naval bases within the jurisdiction of Morong Municipality.
A year after, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2845 and 2848 adopting a calendar of activities for local
referendum and providing for the rules and guidelines to govern the conduct of the referendum proposing
to annul or repeal Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of theSangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan".

Hence, this petition for certiorari by SBMA alleging, inter alia, that public respondent "is intent on
proceeding with a local initiative that proposes an amendment of a national law.

Issues:

1. W/N Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong,
Bataan, is the proper subject of the local initiative questioned herein.
2. W/N Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in implementing and promulgating
Resolution No. 2848 which governs the conduct of referendum?

Ruling:

1. Yes, said resolution is an appropriate subject of the local initiative.

Art. VI, Sec.32 of the 1987 Constitution provides in part: "The Congress shall, as early as
possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby
the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof
passed by the Congress, or local legislative body…"
 In this case, Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 is deemed a proper subject of the
local initiative as the Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances but resolutions as the term
“act” in the provision includes resolution.

2. Yes, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion.

Under the Constitution, the Comelec exercises administration and supervision of the process
of initiative and referendum, akin to its powers over the conduct of elections.

In this case, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion as it made preparations for a
referendum only when in fact the process started by private respondents was an initiative. The
Comelec labeled the exercise as a "Referendum"; the counting of votes was entrusted to a
"Referendum Committee"; the documents were called "referendum returns"; the canvassers,
"Referendum Board of Canvassers" and the ballots themselves bore the description
"referendum". Accordingly, it erred labeling the exercise as a “referendum” when in fact, the
exercise is unquestionably an “initiative.
 Marcos vs Manglapus
G.R. No. 88211
September 15, 1989

Facts:

On February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent
"people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of
the Republic under a revolutionary government.
Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But President
Corazon Aquino, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family considering the
dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from
various directions and that the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward.
As such, petitioners filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to
issue them their travel documents and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar
Marcos from returning in the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his return in the country
and questioned the claim of the President that the decision was made in the interest of national security,
public safety and health. He further claimed that the President acted outside her jurisdiction.
According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty, property without due
process and equal protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right to travel which
according to Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a court order.
Issue:

1. W/N in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the
Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
2. W/N the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines poses a
serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.

Ruling:
No to both issues. Petition dismissed.
Article VII of the Constitution vests in the President of the Executive the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specified conditions.
1. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying our system of government, the
Executive is supreme within his own sphere. Although the constitution outlines tasks of the
president, this list is not defined & exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated
in the Constitution which include the power to protect the general welfare of the people. She is
obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest.

2. The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the
return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines poses a serious threat to
national interest and welfare as it is proven that there are factual bases in her decision. The
supervening events that happened before her decision are factual. Hence, as the President,
she has to uphold the Constitution and must take preemptive measures for the self-
preservation of the country & protection of the people.