16 Fuentes v. Office of the Ombudsman - Mindanao
October 23, 2001 | PARDO, J. | CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION; Those
not covered by Ombudsman’s Power to Investigate1
SUMMARY
The Ombudsman filed a case against Judge Fuentes before the Sandiganbayan for
violation RA 3019. Judge Fuentes alleged that the Ombudsman encroached on the
power of the SC of admin supervision over all courts and its personnel.
SC agreed with Fuentes and stated that the SC is tasked to oversee the judges and
court personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit
any violation of the laws of the land. No other branch of government may intrude into
this power, without running afoul of the independence of the judiciary and the doctrine
of separation of powers.
DOCTRINE
The Supreme Court is the one with the sole jurisdiction to deal with the administrative
complaints against judges. The court also Cites RA 6770 which provides that the
Ombudsman does had disciplinary authority over all elected and appointive
officials...“ EXCEPT officials who may be impeached or over Members of Congress or
the Judiciary”
Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding
Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk.
PROVISIONS
Art. 8, Sec. 6, 1987 Constitution
The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.
FACTS
The Republic expropriated land in Davao to build the first flyover in Davao City.
They won the expropriation case against the owners of the land namely defendants
Tessie Amadeo, Reynaldo Lao and Rev. Alfonso Galo.
● Case was presided by Judge Renato Fuentes
As of May 19, 1994 the government (DPWH) still owed the owners of the lots the
total of P15,510,415.00
● One of the lot owners (Amadeo) obtained a writ of execution against the
DPWH for the satisfaction of the unpaid claim
The property (all junk and scrap metals in a depot of DPWH) was levied upon by the
sheriff, and they were sold in the execution sale.
● Digester’s note: this property was the subject of the writ of execution, the
proceeds of which were to be used to pay off the debt of DPWH to the land
owners
● However when the sheriff and the buyer went to the depot to claim it, they
were prevented by Engineer Ramon Alejo, the Regional Equipment
Engineer of the DPWH Depot in Davao.
1 Case was filed under this topic in Dean Carlota’s discussions
● Alejo claimed that his office was completely unaware of the execution.
○ He said that all the properties were still usable and were due to be
repaired
The buyer got a “break through” order from Judge Fuentes and went to the depot and
was able to seize the levied properties.
● There was a writ of suspension of execution from a lower court but the writ
of execution was eventually reinstated.
Upon the letter from the congressman and Engr. Alejo, Supreme Court directed
Judge Renato A. Fuentes and Sheriff Norberto Paralisan to comment on the
report recommending the filing of an administrative case against the sheriff and
other persons responsible for the anomalous implementation 2 of the writ of
execution. Also, on September 21, 1994, the Department of Public Works and
Highways, through the Solicitor General, filed an administrative complaint against
Sheriff Norberto Paralisan for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
in violation of Article IX, Section 36 (b) of P.D. No. 807.7
The sheriff was found guilty and dismissed, however the SC ordered the Office of the
Court Administrator to investigate Fuentes.
The Ombudsman eventually filed a complaint against Judge fuentes for a
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Judge Fuentes moved for the dismissal of the complaint, which the Ombudsman
denied. Hence this petition.
ISSUE
WN the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation of acts of a judge in the
exercise of his official functions alleged to be in violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, in the absence of an administrative charge for the same
acts before the Supreme Court— NO.
RATIO
The Supreme Court is the one with the sole jurisdiction to deal with the
administrative complaints against judges. The court also Cites RA 6770 which
provides that the Ombudsman does had disciplinary authority over all elected and
appointive officials...“ EXCEPT officials who may be impeached or over Members of
Congress or the Judiciary”
Thus, the Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal or
administrative complaint before his office against petitioner judge, pursuant to
his power to investigate public officers. The Ombudsman must indorse the case to the
Supreme Court, for appropriate action.
Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the
2SC did not discuss why it was anomalous but from the facts of the case it seems that
processes for a writ were not followed, as shown in the DPWH Engineer not being aware of it
nor of the property being of the nature described in the writ
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court
clerk.

Hence, it is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the judges and court
personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they
commit any violation of the laws of the land. No other branch of government may
intrude into this power, without running afoul of the independence of the judiciary and
the doctrine of separation of powers.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the
case and refer the complaint against petitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes to the
Supreme Court for appropriate action.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.