JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR. vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN and JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

Constitutional Law 1 Case Digests

On the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction Over Lower Courts

JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR. vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN and JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

Facts: On May 23, 1997, Florentino M. Alumbres, filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, a Criminal Complaint for physical injuries, malicious mischief for the destruction of complainant’s eyeglasses, and assault upon a person in authority.  It was alleged that he requested Caoibes to return the executive table he borrowed from respondent; that Caoibes did not answer so respondent reiterated his request but before he could finish talking, petitioner blurted “Tarantado ito ah,” and boxed him at his right eyebrow and left lower jaw so that the right lens of his eyeglasses was thrown away, rendering his eyeglasses unserviceable; and that respondent had the incident blottered with the Las Piñas Police Station.  He prayed that criminal charges be filed before the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner.

On June 13, 1997, respondent Judge lodged another administrative case with the Supreme Court, praying for the dismissal of petitioner from the judiciary on the ground of grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.  

The Office of the Ombudsman required petitioner to file a counter-affidavit. But instead of filing a counter-affidavit, petitioner filed on July 7, 1997 and “Ex-Parte Motion for Referral to the Honorable Supreme Court,” praying that the Office of the Ombudsman hold its investigation of Case No. OMB-0-97-0903 in abeyance, and refer the same to the Supreme Court .Petitioner contended that the Supreme Court, not the Office of the Ombudsman, has the authority to make a preliminary determination of the respective culpability of petitioner and respondent Judge who, both being members of the bench, are under its exclusive supervision and control.

Issue: Whether or not the Ombudsman must defer action on a criminal complaint against a judge, or a court employee where the same arises from their administrative duties, and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.

Held: It appears that the present case involves two members of the judiciary who were entangled in a fight within court premises over a piece of office furniture.  Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel.  Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter.  The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether and administrative aspect is involved therein.  This rule should hold true regardless of whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the Ombudsman is already pending with the Court.  For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because in determining whether an administrative matter is involved, the Court passes upon not only administrative liabilities but also other administrative concerns, as is clearly conveyed in the case of Maceda vs. Vasquez.

The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its findings that a case before it does or does not have administrative implications.  To do so is to deprive the Court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned.  This is a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on judicial independence.

Maceda is emphatic that by virtue of its constitutional power of 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, 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.