Case Digest (G.R. No. 167798) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Bonifacio Sanz Maceda v. Hon. Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez and Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera (G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993), petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, Presiding Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Antique, sought certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order to review two orders of the Office of the Ombudsman: (1) the September 18, 1991 order denying his ex parte motion to refer the case to the Supreme Court; and (2) the November 22, 1991 order denying his motion for reconsideration and directing him to file a counter-affidavit. In an April 18, 1991 affidavit-complaint, respondent Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera alleged that Judge Maceda had falsified his Certificate of Service dated February 6, 1989—certifying that all cases submitted for decision within 90 days had been decided—when in fact five civil and ten criminal cases remained undecided. Abiera further claimed that Maceda continued to falsify certificates of service for se Case Digest (G.R. No. 167798) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda is Presiding Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Antique.
- Respondents are Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez and Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera of the Public Attorney’s Office.
- Underlying Complaint and Procedural History
- On April 18, 1991, Atty. Abiera filed an affidavit-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman alleging that Judge Maceda falsified his Certificate of Service (New Judicial Form No. 86) for February 6, 1989, and for 16 subsequent months by certifying that all cases submitted for decision had been decided when in fact several cases remained undecided.
- Petitioner moved ex parte to refer the matter to the Supreme Court; the Ombudsman denied this motion on September 18, 1991, and likewise denied his motion for reconsideration on November 22, 1991, directing him to file counter-affidavit and other evidence.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
- Can the Office of the Ombudsman entertain and investigate a criminal complaint for alleged falsification of a judge’s certificate of service?
- Does Orap v. Sandiganbayan restrict the Ombudsman’s power over offenses committed by judges in the performance of official duties?
- Referral and Separation of Powers
- Assuming the Ombudsman has jurisdiction, must it first refer the matter to the Supreme Court under the Court’s exclusive administrative supervision over the judiciary?
- Does the Ombudsman’s direct investigation infringe on the doctrine of separation of powers by encroaching on the Supreme Court’s administrative authority?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)