Case Digest (G.R. No. 102781)
Facts:
Bonifacio Sanz Maceda v. Hon. Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez and Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera, G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc, Nocon, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, Presiding Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Antique, sought certiorari relief challenging two orders of the Office of the Ombudsman: the Order of September 18, 1991 denying his ex parte motion to refer a complaint to the Supreme Court, and the Order of November 22, 1991 denying his motion for reconsideration and directing him to file a counter-affidavit and other controverting evidence.
The complaint arose from an affidavit-complaint dated April 18, 1991 filed with the Ombudsman by Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera (Public Attorney’s Office). Abiera alleged that Judge Maceda had falsified his New Judicial Form No. 86, Certificate of Service dated February 6, 1989, by certifying that all cases submitted for decision within a 90-day period had been decided when, according to Abiera, five civil and ten criminal cases were still undecided. Abiera further alleged similar falsifications in certificates of service for additional months in 1989 and for January to September 1990—a total of seventeen months.
Judge Maceda replied that he had been granted a 90‑day extension by the Supreme Court to decide the cases in question and moved the Ombudsman to refer the complaint to the Supreme Court. The Ombudsman denied the motion (Sept. 18, 1991) and later denied reconsideration (Nov. 22, 1991), ordering an investigation to proceed. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court with a prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order seeking review of the Ombudsman’s orders.
The Court considered whether (1) the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint alleging falsification of a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Office of the Ombudsman entertain a criminal complaint alleging falsification by a judge of a certificate of service submitted to the Supreme Court?
- If the Ombudsman may entertain such a complaint, must it first refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination when the complaint arises from the judg...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)