G.R. No. 162873 - Caoibes, Jr. vs. Caoibes-Pantoja

Petitioner: Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., Presiding Judge of Branch 253 of the Regional Trial Court in Las Piñas City.
Respondents:

The Honorable Ombudsman.
Judge Florentino M. Alumbres, Presiding Judge of Branch 255 of the Regional Trial Court in Las Piñas City.

On May 20, 1997, at the third-floor hallway of the Hall of Justice in Las Piñas City, an altercation occurred over the return of an executive table borrowed by petitioner.
During the confrontation, petitioner allegedly insulted respondent (“Tarantado ito ah”) and physically struck him, boxing him at the right eyebrow and left lower jaw, which resulted in damage to respondent’s eyeglasses (the right lens being thrown away, rendering them unserviceable).

On May 23, 1997, respondent Judge Florentino M. Alumbres filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for:

On June 13, 1997, respondent Judge filed an additional administrative complaint with the Supreme Court (docketed Adm. Case No. 97-387-RTJ), seeking the dismissal of petitioner for grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a judicial officer, based on the same incident.

On June 25, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an order requiring petitioner to file a counter-affidavit within ten (10) days.
Instead of complying, petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Referral to the Supreme Court on July 7, 1997, requesting that the investigation be paused and referred to the Supreme Court, arguing that:

The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to determine the preliminary culpability of judiciary members, given their administrative supervision over judges.

The Office of the Ombudsman, invoking Section 15(1) of Republic Act No. 6770, denied the motion on August 22, 1997.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, maintaining that the investigation should either be referred to the Supreme Court or await the resolution of the pending administrative case.
On December 22, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration and required petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit within five (5) days.

The reversal of the orders dated August 22, 1997, and December 22, 1997 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The issuance of a writ of injunction or temporary restraining order directing the Ombudsman to refrain from further action in implementing the challenged orders.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman should defer action on case No. OMB-0-97-0903 pending the resolution of Adm. Case No. 97-387-RTJ involving the same parties and subject matter.

Whether the allegations against petitioner, falling within criminal offenses (physical injuries, malicious mischief, and assault) under Section 15(1) of R.A. 6770, vest primary jurisdiction with the Ombudsman despite involving a judiciary member.
Whether the Ombudsman's action interferes with the exclusive administrative supervision of the Supreme Court over its judges, as mandated by Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Whether the proper protocol requires the criminal complaint to be referred to the Supreme Court for determination of any administrative implications before further investigation by the Ombudsman.