Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

April 1993 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > April 1993 Decisions >G.R.
No. 102781 April 22, 1993 - BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET
AL.:

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 102781. April 22, 1993.]

BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Presiding Judge, Branch 12, Regional Trial Court,
Antique, Petitioner, v. HON. OMBUDSMAN CONRADO M. VASQUEZ AND ATTY.
NAPOLEON A. ABIERA, Respondents.

Bonifacio Sanz Maceda for and in his own behalf.

Public Attorney’s Office for Private Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION; OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN HAS JURISDICTION

TO INVESTIGATE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT OFFENSE
RELATES TO OFFICIAL DUTIES; REASON. — Petitioner also contends that the
Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over said cases despite this Court’s ruling in Orap v.
Sandiganbayan, since the offense charged arose from the judge’s performance of his
official duties, which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court . . .
The Court disagrees with the first part of petitioner’s basic argument. There is nothing
in the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses committed by a judge
unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is
administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency
under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State
under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE OFFENSE RELATED TO OFFICIAL

DUTIES SUBJECT TO PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST JUDGE BY
SUPREME COURT; REASON. — However, We agree with petitioner that in the absence
 of any administrative action taken against him by this Court with regard to his
certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman
encroaches into the Court’s power of administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE TO BE OBSERVED BY OMBUDSMAN REGARDING

COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE OR OTHER COURT EMPLOYEE; PURPOSE. — Thus, the
Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner’s certificates of service to this
Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his
pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such a
determination . . . In fine, where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court
employee arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action
on said complaint and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said
judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; OMBUDSMAN CANNOT SUBPOENA SUPREME COURT AND ITS
PERSONNEL; REASON. — The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the
three branches of government, to submit its records, or to allow its personnel to
testify on this matter, as suggested by public respondent Abiera in his affidavit-
complaint. The rationale for the foregoing pronouncement is evident in this case.
Administratively, the question before Us is this: should a judge, having been granted
by this Court an extension of time to decide cases before him, report these cases in
his certificate of service? As this question had not yet been raised with, much less
resolved by, this Court, how could the Ombudsman resolve the present criminal
complaint that requires the resolution of said question?

DECISION

NOCON, J.:

The issue in this petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction
and/or restraining order is whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal
complaint for the alleged falsification of a judge’s certification submitted to the Supreme
Court, and assuming that it can, whether a referral should be made first to the Supreme
Court.

Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, Presiding Judge of Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court
of Antique, seeks the review of the following orders of the Office of the Ombudsman: (1)
the Order dated September 18, 1991 denying the ex-parte motion to refer to the Supreme
Court filed by petitioner; and (2) the Order dated November 22, 1951 denying petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration and directing petitioner to file his counter-affidavit and other
controverting evidences. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In his affidavit-complaint dated April 18, 1991 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman,
respondent Napoleon A. Abiera of the Public Attorney’s Office alleged that petitioner had
falsified his Certificate of Service 1 dated February 6, 1989, by certifying "that all civil and
criminal cases which have been submitted for decision or determination for a period of 90
days have been determined and decided on or before January 31, 1998," when in truth and
in fact, petitioner knew that no decision had been rendered in five (5) civil and ten (10)
criminal cases that have been submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera further alleged
that petitioner similarly falsified his certificates of service for the months of February, April,
May, June, July and August, all in 1989; and the months beginning January up to
September 1990, or for a total of seventeen (17) months.

On the other hand, petitioner contends that he had been granted by this Court an extension
of ninety (90) days to decide the aforementioned cases.

Petitioner also contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over said case despite this
Court’s ruling in Orap v. Sandiganbayan, 2 since the offense charged arose from the judge’s
performance of his official duties, which is under the control and supervision of the
Supreme Court. Furthermore, the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an
encroachment into the Supreme Court’s constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior
courts.

The Court disagrees with the first Part of petitioner’s basic argument. There is nothing in
the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses committed by a judge unrelated
to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable
to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Section 1, Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his
felonious act.

However, We agree with petitioner that in the absence of any administrative action taken
against him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court’s power of administrative
supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
powers.

Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of
the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power,
it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance
with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any
violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without
running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by
the Constitution, 3 for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of
the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts and their
personnel, but likewise undermines the independence of the judiciary. chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner’s certificates of service to
this Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his
pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such a determination.
The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of government, to
submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter, as suggested by public
respondent Abiera in his affidavit-complaint. 4

The rationale for the foregoing pronouncement is evident in this case. Administratively. the
question before Us is this: should a judge, having been granted by this Court an extension
of time to decide cases before him, report these cases in his certificate of service? As this
question had not yet been raised with, much less resolved by, this Court. how could the
Ombudsman resolve the present criminal complaint that requires the resolution of said
question?

In fine, where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from
their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer
the same to this Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted
within the scope of their administrative duties.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Ombudsman is hereby directed
to dismiss the complaint filed by public respondent Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera and to refer the
same to this Court for appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.
 Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1. New Judicial Form No. 86, Revised 1986.

2. L-50508-11, 139 SCRA 252 (1985).

3. The Order of September 18, 1991, in denying petitioner’s ex-parte motion to

refer the case to the Supreme Court, cited Article XI, section 13 (1) and (2),
which provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions, and duties: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Investigate on its own, or on compliant be any person, any act or omission
of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

(2) Direct, upon complaint or at it own instance, any public official or employee
of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well
as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to
perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and
correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.

4. Rollo, p. 19.

Back to Home | Back to Main

Queanbeyan Conveyancing
Specialising in Property Law -

bevanco.com.au OPEN

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles Professional
Review, Inc.
 ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Review

ChanRobles CPA Review

Online

ChanRobles Special Lecture

Series
 April-1993 Jurisprudence

• G.R. No. 103306 April 5, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN
BESMONTE
• G.R. No. 103575 April 5, 1993 -
BUSINESSDAY INFORMATION
SYSTEMS AND SERVICES, INC.,
ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 73531 April 6, 1993 -

DOLORES DELOS SANTOS, ET AL.
v. CAMILO MONTESA, JR., ET AL.

• G.R. No. 91622 April 6, 1993 -

P.T. CERNA CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 94005 April 6, 1993 -

LUISA LYON NUÑAL, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 94786 April 6, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO
CLAVERIA

• G.R. No. 100963 April 6, 1993 -

ARTEMIO SANTOS, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 101021 April 6, 1993 -

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 106527 April 6, 1993 -

CESAR E.A. VIRATA v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

• A.M. No. MTJ-89-315 April 7,

1993 - GODOFREDO DELA CRUZ
v. BONIFACIO V. CURSO

• A.M. No. P-90-452 April 7, 1993 -

NELIA RECIO v. VICTORINO M.
ACUÑA, ET AL.

• A.M. No. P-91-593 April 7, 1993 -

OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR v. LIBERATO
YAMBAO

• A.M. No. RTJ-91-766 April 7,

1993 - JOSE P. UY, ET AL. v.
TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG

• G.R. No. L-30770 April 7, 1993 -

CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY
CO., INC. v. CENTRAL
AZUCARERA DEL DANAO

• G.R. No. 63786-87 April 7, 1993 -

UNITED PARACALE MINING
COMPANY, ET AL. v. JOSELITO
DELA ROSA, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 73345 April 7, 1993 -

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v.
MOONWALK DEVELOPMENT &
HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

• G.R. Nos. 79690-707 April 7,

1993 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 82727-28 April 7, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO
VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.
• G.R. No. 84301 April 7, 1993 -
NATIONAL LAND TITLES AND
DEEDS REGISTRATION ADMIN. v.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET
AL.

• G.R. No. 84391 April 7, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO J.
SALAZAR, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 89222 April 7, 1993 -

CARMEN SANTOS v. EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION COMMISSION,
ET AL.

• G.R. No. 89553 April 7, 1993 -

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 90169 April 7, 1993 -

PILAR PAGSIBIGAN v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. Nos. 93808-09 April 7, 1993

- PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
BELARMINO DIVINA, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 94753 April 7, 1993 -

MANOTOK BROTHERS, INC. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. Nos. 94992-93 April 7, 1993

- PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
BENJAMIN RAMIREZ SARINO, ET
AL.

• G.R. No. 97525 April 7, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL B.
SARTAGODA, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 97959 April 7, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ALEJANDRO S. ESGUERRA

• G.R. No. 98111 April 7, 1993 -

UNION OF FILIPINO WORKERS v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 100335 April 7, 1993 -

UNCIANO PARAMEDICAL
COLLEGE, INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS

• G.R. No. 100671 April 7, 1993 -

TEODORICO E. MENDIOLA v.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET
AL.

• G.R. No. 100867 April 7, 1993 -

LIM SIO BIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 101089 April 7, 1993 -

ESTRELLITA M. BASCOS v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 101328 April 7, 1993 -

EMILIANA CANDIDO, ET AL. v.
DEMETRIO MACAPAGAL, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 101584 April 7, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIANO
A. JUMAMOY
• G.R. No. 101978 April 7, 1993 -
EDUARDO P. PILAPIL v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 102645 April 7, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO
L. PADICA, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 103967 April 7, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
GENEROSO E. SUJETADO

• G.R. No. 104658 April 7, 1993 -

PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 106087 April 7, 1993 -

ROLITO T. GO v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 90736 April 12, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
GORGONIO G. BUNTAN, SR.

• G.R. No. 99034 April 12, 1993 -

JEAN C. AURELIO v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
ET AL.

• G.R. Nos. 102081-83 April 12,

1993 - UNITED PLACEMENT
INTERNATIONAL v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
ET AL.

• G.R. No. 97839 April 22, 1993 -

LAURA MATEO v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 102781 April 22, 1993 -

BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA v.
CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 105359 April 22, 1993 -

CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL
CONSTRUCTION GROUPS v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 105717 April 22, 1993 -

JOSE L. ONG, JR. v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

• A.M. No. P-88-157 April 23, 1993

- MARIANO TUPAS v. LEO R.
CABALLERO

• G.R. No. 76005 April 23, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO
C. EXALA, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 96643 April 23, 1993 -

ERNESTO DEIPARINE, JR. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 100127 April 23, 1993 -

JOSE D. LINA, JR. v. ISIDRO D.
CARIÑO, ET AL.

• A.M. No. RTJ-90-580 April 27,

1993 - EDUARDO R. BALAOING v.
LEOPOLDO CALDERON
 • G.R. Nos. 92506-07 April 28,
1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ESTELITO C. ESTRELLA

• G.R. No. 100231 April 28, 1993 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
RODRIGO DASIG, ET AL.

• G.R. Nos. 101557-58 April 28,

1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET
AL. v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET
AL.

• G.R. No. 101789 April 28, 1993 -

BHAGWAN RAMNANI v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

• G.R. No. 83631 April 30, 1993 -

NEW IMUS LUMBER, ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz