Upon the letter from the congressman and engr alejo

This preview shows page 55 - 57 out of 71 pages.

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 of the writ of 4 execution . Also, on September 21, 1994, the Department of Public Works and Highways , through the Solicitor General, f iled an administrative complaint against Sheriff Norberto Paralisan 4 SC 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
Image of page 55
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 v iolation 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 judg e, 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 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.
Image of page 56
Image of page 57

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 71 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Government, Separation of Powers, Supreme Court of the United States, The Court, Sc

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes