Luz Adajar vs Teresita Develos (2005) - Case Digest

Constitutional Law 1 - Case Digests

On the Supreme Court's Supervision Over Lower Courts

Facts: Luz C. Adajar filed a complaint against Teresita Develos, Cyrus Ellorin and Celsa Ellorin, who are government employees stationed at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. Complainant alleged that she delivered pieces of jewelries on a consignment basis amounting to 70,000 pesos to Mrs. Teresita Develuz at her office at RTC Branch 8 Staff Room, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon with the agreement that she will pay the said amount within Three (3) Months. Mrs. Develuz made partial payments in the total amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos. However, when  demanded from to pay the balance of P20,000.00  Pesos, she refused. On February 6, 2002 complainant, again, went to RTC Branch 8 to collect the account from Mrs. Develuz when the latter, in an angry and loud voice said, “Dili ba nga gihatagan ta naman ka sa listahan sa mga nakakuha sa alahas?  Ikaw na ang maningil sa ila”, (which in English literally means “IS IT NOT THAT I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN YOU THE LIST OF THOSE WHO GOT THE JEWELRIES? YOU COLLECT IT YOURSELF”). While having a verbal tussle, Mr. Cyrus Ellorin who is a co-employee of Mrs. Develuz, with the designation of court interpreter of Branch 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, allegedly, went near and shouted.  Mr. Cyrus Ellorin violently pushed complainant of the staff room, practically driving her out as if she was a leper. Employees of the office of the Clerk of Court brought her to their office and gave her water and comforted her.  The incident was reported to the police and entered into the blotter.

Respondents contend that the acts of respondents Celsa Ellorin and Teresita Develos being complained of by complainant were not in relation to their functions as court employees but were in connection with the pecuniary activity of complainant. Respondents further assert that complainant is guilty of dishonesty for certifying that she did not commence any other action before any tribunal or body except before this Court when in fact she also filed a complaint for misconduct with the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao.  Respondents also submitted in evidence a Joint-Affidavit executed by persons who were indebted to complainant stating therein that respondent Develos simply facilitated the sale of jewelry made by complainant.

Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, acting on the complaint for misconduct filed by herein complainant, rendered a Decision dismissing the administrative case against herein respondents as well as the counter-complaint filed by the latter against herein complainant.

The Investigating Judge adopted the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao and, accordingly, recommended that the instant administrative complaint be dismissed.

Issue:

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman should take cognizance of this case

Held:  

No, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao should not have taken cognizance of the instant case the same being administrative in nature.  As correctly pointed out by the OCA, it has been settled as early as the case of Maceda vs. Vasquez that:

 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 power.

Pursuant to the above-settled rule, the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao should have referred the instant complaint to this Court for appropriate action, instead of resolving the same.  Hence, we agree with the OCA that the Decision rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao in OMB-M-A-02-126-E does not have any force and effect on the present administrative case before us.