Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao

The Ombudsman lacks the authority to initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint against a judge for acts done in relation to official functions; such complaints must be endorsed to the Supreme Court.

The Republic, represented by the DPWH, filed an expropriation case for a flyover project against several property owners, presided over by Judge Renato A. Fuentes. The government won but owed the defendants over P15 million. A writ of execution was issued, and the sheriff levied scrap iron and junk equipment at a DPWH depot, which was subsequently sold at auction to Alex Bacquial. When a DPWH engineer prevented Bacquial from withdrawing the items—claiming some were still serviceable—Bacquial filed an ex parte urgent motion for a "break through" order. Judge Fuentes granted the motion, allowing Bacquial to haul off the equipment, including repairable items, over several days until the writ was temporarily suspended.

• Expropriation Proceedings: The DPWH filed Special Civil Case No. 22,052-93 to expropriate properties for a flyover. Judge Fuentes presided. The government won but failed to fully pay the defendants, accumulating a debt of P15,510,415.00.
• Execution and Levy: The court granted defendant Tessie Amadeo's motion for a writ of execution. Sheriff Norberto Paralisan issued a notice of levy on "scrap iron/junks" at the DPWH depot in Panacan, Davao City. An auction was held where Alex Bacquial emerged as the highest bidder.
• Contested Withdrawal: Bacquial and Sheriff Paralisan attempted to withdraw the auctioned properties but were blocked by DPWH Regional Equipment Engineer Ramon Alejo, who asserted that many items were serviceable and due for repair. Bacquial filed an ex parte urgent motion for a "break through" order, which Judge Fuentes granted on May 20, 1994. Bacquial hauled equipment from the depot for five successive days until the court temporarily suspended the writ.
• Ombudsman Intervention: Following the Supreme Court's directive in A.M. No. RTJ-94-1270 to investigate Judge Fuentes, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao independently initiated a criminal complaint against the judge for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Graft Investigation Officer II Marivic A. Trabajo-Daray ordered Judge Fuentes to submit a counter-affidavit and subsequently denied his motion to dismiss or forward the records to the Supreme Court.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner argued that the respondent Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by initiating and investigating a criminal complaint against him for acts done in the exercise of his official functions.
• Encroachment on Supreme Court Power: Petitioner maintained that the Ombudsman's investigation encroached upon the constitutional power of the Supreme Court to exercise administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel.

• Lack of Supreme Court Records: The Solicitor General argued that the Ombudsman properly exercised jurisdiction because the Supreme Court was not in possession of any records to verify the propriety of the issuance of the questioned orders.
• Absence of Similar Administrative Case: Respondent asserted that the Court Administrator had not filed any administrative case against the petitioner judge that would pose issues similar to the Ombudsman's inquiry, justifying the Ombudsman's concurrent investigation.

• Jurisdiction over the Judiciary: Whether the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation of acts of a judge in the exercise of official functions alleged to be in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in the absence of an administrative charge for the same acts before the Supreme Court.

• Jurisdiction over the Judiciary: The Ombudsman is prohibited from initiating or investigating a criminal or administrative complaint against a judge for acts relating to official functions. Section 21 of R.A. No. 6770 expressly excludes members of the Judiciary from the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the Ombudsman must endorse such cases to the Supreme Court. Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel in the Supreme Court; no other branch may intrude upon this power without violating judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers. The questioned orders were issued in relation to the judge's official functions, and whether such orders were valid must be inquired into solely by the Supreme Court.

• Administrative Supervision over the Judiciary — 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. No other entity or official has the competence to review a judicial order or decision and pronounce it erroneous to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint; that prerogative belongs to the courts alone.
• Exception to Ombudsman Jurisdiction — Under Section 21 of R.A. No. 6770, the Office of the Ombudsman possesses disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment, Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. Consequently, the Ombudsman cannot investigate judges for acts done in their official capacity and must instead endorse the complaint to the Supreme Court.

• "No other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution or investigation service of any other branch, not any functionary thereof, has competence to review a judicial order or decision--whether final and executory or not--and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or order. That prerogative belongs to the courts alone."

• Sanz Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464 (1993) — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel in the Supreme Court.
• Judge Dolalas v. Ombudsman-Mindanao, 333 Phil. 690 (1996) — Followed the doctrine that the Supreme Court possesses exclusive administrative supervision over the judiciary, precluding the Ombudsman from investigating judges for official acts.
• De Vera v. Pelayo, 335 SCRA 281 (2000) — Cited for the principle that no other entity or official possesses the competence to review a judicial order and pronounce it erroneous as a basis for a criminal or administrative complaint.

• Section 15, Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) — Grants the Ombudsman the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer when such act appears illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The Court recognized this general grant of power but limited its application to judges pursuant to Section 21 of the same law.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) — Provides that the Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials except over officials removable only by impeachment, Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. Applied to strip the Ombudsman of jurisdiction over the petitioner judge and require the endorsement of the complaint to the Supreme Court.
• Article VIII, Section 6, 1987 Constitution — Vests exclusively in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. Applied to prohibit the Ombudsman from intruding into the investigation of a judge's official acts, reinforcing the doctrine of separation of powers.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ.