Case Digest (G.R. No. 129742) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Teresita G. Fabian v. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, et al. (G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998), petitioner Teresita G. Fabian, president and major stockholder of PROMAT Construction Development Corporation, accused respondent Nestor V. Agustin, then Assistant Regional Director, DPWH Region IV-A, of grave misconduct, oppression, and immoral conduct. Fabian alleged that Agustin, abusing his official position, entered into an unlawful amorous relationship with her during PROMAT’s participation in government bids, awarded her company public works contracts, and later resorted to intimidation and threats when their affair soured. On July 24, 1995, she filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman seeking Agustin’s dismissal under Section 19, R.A. 6770 and Section 36, PD 807, and prayed for preventive suspension. A graft investigator found Agustin guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal on January 31, 1996. The Ombudsman modified the penalty to a on Case Digest (G.R. No. 129742) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner Teresita G. Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT Construction Development Corporation (PROMAT), a government contractor.
- Private respondent Engr. Nestor V. Agustin was then Assistant Regional Director, Region IV-A, DPWH (formerly District Engineer of FMED).
- Relationship and Allegations
- Agustin allegedly induced Fabian into an amorous relationship and, abusing his office, awarded PROMAT public‐works contracts and interceded on its behalf.
- When Fabian sought to end the affair, Agustin reportedly harassed, intimidated, and threatened her.
- In a letter‐complaint dated July 24, 1995, Fabian charged Agustin with grave misconduct, oppression, and immoral conduct under Section 19 of R.A. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Section 36 of P.D. 807 (Civil Service Decree), praying for his dismissal and preventive suspension.
- Ombudsman Proceedings
- Graft Investigator’s Resolution (Jan. 31, 1996): Found Agustin guilty of grave misconduct; recommended dismissal with forfeiture of benefits (approved by Director Baldrias and Asst. Ombudsman Aportadera).
- Ombudsman’s Order (Feb. 26, 1996): Modified findings to simple misconduct; imposed one‐year suspension without pay.
- Upon discovering a conflict of interest, the Ombudsman inhibited himself; case transferred to Deputy Ombudsman Jesus F. Guerrero.
- Joint Order (June 18, 1997): Guerrero set aside the February 26 Order and exonerated Agustin; deemed final and unappealable per Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07.
- Appeal and Procedural Controversy
- Fabian filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45, challenging her inability to appeal the exoneration.
- Respondents invoked the Ombudsman’s rule (AO 07, Rule III, Sec. 7) barring appeals from decisions absolving respondents.
- Parties debated the interplay between certiorari under Rule 45 (appeal) and Rule 65 (special civil action), and the validity of Section 27, RA 6770 as a source of SC jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court, sua sponte, required briefs on the constitutionality of Section 27, RA 6770 vis-à-vis Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits laws increasing the Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice and consent.
Issues:
- Does Section 27 of R.A. 6770 validly confer upon the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to entertain appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 from administrative disciplinary decisions of the Ombudsman?
- Are Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 and related provisions—which declare decisions absolving respondents final and unappealable—valid?
- What is the proper forum and procedure for reviewing Ombudsman administrative disciplinary decisions?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)