Upon the letter from the congressman and Engr. Alejo,SupremeCourt directed Judge Renato A. Fuentes and Sheriff NorbertoParalisan to comment on the report recommending the filing ofan administrative case against the sheriff and other personsresponsible for the anomalous implementationof the writ of4execution.Also, on September 21, 1994, theDepartment ofPublic Works and Highways, through the Solicitor General, filedan administrative complaint against Sheriff Norberto Paralisan4SC did not discusswhyit was anomalous but from the facts of the case itseems that processes for a writ were not followed, as shown in the DPWHEngineer not being aware of it nor of the property being of the naturedescribed in the writ
for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, in violationof Article IX, Section 36 (b) of P.D. No. 807.7 Thesheriffwasfoundguiltyand dismissed, however the SCorderedtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratortoinvestigateFuentes. TheOmbudsman eventually filed a complaint against Judgefuentes for a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt PracticesAct. Judge Fuentes moved for the dismissal of the complaint, which theOmbudsman denied. Hence this petition. ISSUE WN the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation of acts of ajudge in the exercise of his official functionsalleged to be inviolation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in theabsence of an administrative chargefor the same acts beforethe Supreme Court— NO. RATIO The Supreme Court is the one with the sole jurisdiction to dealwith the administrative complaints against judges.The courtalso Cites RA 6770 which provides that the Ombudsman does haddisciplinary authority over all elected and appointive officials...“EXCEPT officials who may be impeached or over Members ofCongress or the Judiciary” Thus, theOmbudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminalor administrative complaint before his office against petitionerjudge, pursuant to his power to investigate public officers. TheOmbudsman must indorse the case to the Supreme Court, forappropriate action. Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests inthe Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courtsand court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court ofAppeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. Hence,it is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee thejudges and court personnel and take the proper administrativeaction against them if they commit any violation of the laws ofthe land. No other branch of government may intrude into thispower, without running afoul of the independence of the judiciaryand the doctrine of separation of powers. RULING WHEREFORE,thepetitionis GRANTED. The Ombudsman isdirectedtodismissthecaseandreferthe complaint againstpetitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes to the Supreme Court forappropriate action.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 71 pages?
Government, Separation of Powers, Supreme Court of the United States, The Court, Sc