Fabian vs. Desierto

Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, which authorizes a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, is unconstitutional because it increases the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent, in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The correct procedural remedy for such appeals is a petition for review to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

The case arose from an administrative complaint filed by petitioner Teresita G. Fabian, a private contractor, against private respondent Nestor V. Agustin, a District Engineer of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Fabian alleged that Agustin, taking advantage of his official position, engaged her in an amorous relationship, awarded public works contracts to her company, and later harassed and threatened her when she tried to end the affair. This led to the filing of charges for grave misconduct, oppression, and disgraceful conduct against Agustin before the Office of the Ombudsman.

• Petitioner Teresita G. Fabian was the major stockholder of PROMAT Construction Development Corporation, a company engaged in the construction business.
• Private respondent Nestor V. Agustin was a District Engineer for the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
• Agustin allegedly used his official position to inveigle Fabian into an amorous relationship, during which he awarded public works contracts to her company, PROMAT.
• After misunderstandings arose, Fabian attempted to terminate the relationship, but Agustin allegedly resisted through acts of harassment, intimidation, and threats.
• On July 24, 1995, Fabian filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, seeking Agustin's dismissal for grave misconduct and other offenses.
• The Ombudsman initially found Agustin guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty of a one-year suspension without pay.
• Upon Agustin's motion for reconsideration, Deputy Ombudsman Jesus F. Guerrero issued a Joint Order on June 18, 1997, which set aside the earlier order and exonerated Agustin from all administrative charges.
• Fabian then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court directly with the Supreme Court, citing Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as the basis for the appeal.

• Petitioner argued that Section 27 of R.A. 6770 explicitly grants a right to appeal decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45.
• Petitioner contended that Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman's Administrative Order No. 07, which states that a decision absolving a respondent is final and unappealable, is invalid because it contradicts the statutory right to appeal provided by R.A. 6770.
• In response to the constitutional issue raised by the Court, petitioner claimed that Section 27 of R.A. 6770 does not "increase" the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, as it only allows appeals on pure questions of law, which the Court is already empowered to hear under the Constitution.

• Respondents argued that the Office of the Ombudsman is constitutionally and statutorily empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure, which includes the rule making a decision of exoneration final and unappealable.
• Respondents questioned the propriety of petitioner's chosen remedy, which was styled as a Rule 45 appeal but also sought to be treated as a Rule 65 petition in the alternative.
• Respondents invoked the principle that courts should avoid resolving constitutional questions if the case can be decided on other grounds, suggesting the petition could be dismissed based on the finality of the Ombudsman's decision.

• Procedural Issues:
• What is the correct procedural pathway for appealing a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative disciplinary case?
• Substantive Issues:
• Whether Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 is unconstitutional for violating Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the passage of any law increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent.

• Procedural:
• The Court ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases must be filed with the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 45 appeals to the Supreme Court are limited to judgments from the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Courts, and other courts of law, not quasi-judicial agencies. The petition was therefore ordered transferred to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.
• Substantive:
• The Court declared Section 27 of R.A. 6770 unconstitutional. The provision expanded the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction by mandating direct appeals from a quasi-judicial body (the Ombudsman), which is not a "lower court" within the meaning of Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution. This expansion of jurisdiction was enacted without the advice and consent of the Supreme Court, directly contravening the explicit prohibition in Article VI, Section 30 of the Constitution. Consequently, Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 was also declared invalid insofar as it implemented this unconstitutional mode of appeal.

• Constitutional Supremacy — The Court affirmed the principle that the Constitution is the paramount law, and any statute that transgresses its provisions is null and void. This doctrine was applied to invalidate Section 27 of R.A. 6770 for being contrary to an express constitutional prohibition.
• Judicial Power to Determine Jurisdiction — The Court has the inherent authority to inquire into its own jurisdiction at any stage of a proceeding, even on its own motion (ex mero motu). The Court exercised this power by raising the constitutional validity of its appellate jurisdiction under R.A. 6770, even though the parties had not initially raised the issue.
• Procedural vs. Substantive Law — A rule is procedural if it regulates the judicial process for enforcing rights, whereas it is substantive if it creates or takes away a vested right. The Court held that changing the venue of an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals is a procedural matter that does not impair the substantive right to appeal itself and is within the Supreme Court's rule-making power.
• Principle of Hierarchy of Courts — The ruling reinforces the orderly administration of justice by directing appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals, which is better equipped as a trier of fact to review administrative decisions that often involve both factual and legal questions, before a case may be elevated to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.

• "WHEREFORE, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), together with Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), and any other provision of law or issuance implementing the aforesaid Act and insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court, are hereby declared INVALID and of no further force and effect."

• First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals — Cited as the controlling precedent explaining that the constitutional prohibition in Section 30, Article VI was intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over its appellate caseload and to prevent its being unduly burdened by indiscriminate legislation.
• Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman — Referenced as a prior case where a direct appeal from the Ombudsman was taken to the Supreme Court, but the Court noted that statements in that case needed re-examination and clarification, which was accomplished in the present ruling.
• Ocampo IV vs. Ombudsman and Young vs. Office of the Ombudsman — Mentioned as examples of cases where parties correctly resorted to a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to question the Ombudsman's actions, distinguishing such remedy from the unconstitutional Rule 45 appeal at issue.

• 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 30 — This was the central constitutional provision violated. It prohibits Congress from passing any law that increases the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in the Constitution without the Court's advice and consent.
• 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5(2)(e) — This provision grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of "lower courts." The Court interpreted "lower courts" to refer to components of the integrated judicial system, not quasi-judicial agencies like the Ombudsman.
• Republic Act No. 6770, Section 27 — This is the statutory provision that was declared unconstitutional. It provided for direct appeals of administrative decisions of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Rules of Court, Rule 43 — The Court identified this rule as the correct mode of appeal for decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, including the Office of the Ombudsman, to the Court of Appeals.
• Rules of Court, Rule 45 — The Court clarified that this rule governs appeals by certiorari from judgments of courts of law to the Supreme Court and is not the proper vehicle for appealing decisions of quasi-judicial agencies.
• Administrative Order No. 07, Rule III, Section 7 — This rule from the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure was declared invalid insofar as it implemented or provided for the unconstitutional direct appeal to the Supreme Court.