Case Summary (G.R. No. 129742)
Procedural History
• July 24, 1995: Petitioner files a letter‐complaint for grave misconduct, oppression and immoral conduct, praying for dismissal and preventive suspension.
• Jan. 31, 1996: Graft Investigator finds private respondent guilty of grave misconduct; recommends dismissal with forfeiture of benefits.
• Feb. 26, 1996: Ombudsman approves findings as modified—private respondent guilty of misconduct; suspends him without pay for one year.
• June 18, 1997: Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero, after transfer of the case, grants private respondent’s motion for reconsideration and exonerates him.
• Sept. 16, 1998: Supreme Court issues decision on petitioner’s certiorari appeal.
Statutory and Constitutional Framework
• 1987 Constitution
– Article XI, Sec. 13(8): Ombudsman may promulgate its own rules of procedure.
– Article VI, Sec. 30: No law shall increase Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction without its advice and consent.
– Article VIII, Sec. 5(2)(e): SC may review final orders of lower courts “as the law or the Rules of Court may provide.”
• Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)
– Sec. 14: Only Supreme Court may review Ombudsman’s decisions on pure questions of law.
– Sec. 18 & Sec. 23: Grants rule‐making power and mandates investigations.
– Sec. 27: Provides for appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
• Administrative Order No. 07 (1990), Rule III, Sec. 7: Declares certain Ombudsman decisions final and unappealable.
• Rules of Court revisions (1997)
– Rule 45: Appeals by certiorari to SC only from specified courts.
– Rule 43: Uniform petition for review in Court of Appeals of quasi-judicial decisions.
– Rule 65: Special civil action of certiorari for jurisdictional defects.
Jurisdictional Challenge and Court’s Inquiry
Petitioner invoked RA 6770 Sec. 27 to appeal under Rule 45. Public respondents countered that AO 07 Sec. 7 bars appeal when the Ombudsman absolves a respondent. They further defended their rule‐making authority under the Constitution and RA 6770. The Court, sua sponte, questioned the constitutionality of Sec. 27 RA 6770 under Art. VI Sec. 30, ordered supplemental briefs, but the Solicitor General did not comply.
Analysis of Appellate Jurisdiction and Rule-Making Power
• Rule 45 (1997) limits SC certiorari appeals to decisions of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Courts and authorized courts. It omits quasi-judicial bodies.
• Rule 43 creates a uniform appeal mechanism to the Court of Appeals for quasi-judicial agencies, including the Ombudsman.
• Appeals to SC under Rule 65 are restricted to questions of jurisdiction; not a substitute for appeals on the merits.
• The Court recalled that its rule-making power may embrace only procedural changes; substantive rights (including appellate jurisdiction as constitutionally conferred) cannot be impaired.
Ruling on Constitutionality of Section 27, R.A. 6770
The Court held that Sec. 27 RA 6770, insofar as it purports to confer on the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary decisions of the Ombudsman, violates Art. VI Sec. 30 of the 1987 Constitution
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 129742)
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed an administrative complaint (July 24, 1995) before the Office of the Ombudsman against private respondent Agustin for grave misconduct, oppression, and immoral conduct under Section 19, R.A. 6770 and Section 36, P.D. 807, praying for dismissal and preventive suspension.
- Graft Investigator Eduardo R. Benitez issued a resolution (January 31, 1996) finding Agustin guilty of grave misconduct and ordering his dismissal with forfeiture of benefits; approved by Director Baldrias and Assistant Ombudsman Aportadera.
- Ombudsman Desierto issued an Order (February 26, 1996) modifying the penalty to one-year suspension without pay for misconduct.
- Upon motion for reconsideration and Desierto’s inhibition, Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero issued a Joint Order (June 18, 1997) setting aside the suspension and exonerating Agustin.
- Petitioner appealed by certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, invoking Section 27 of R.A. 6770; respondents defended the Ombudsman’s rule-making authority and questioned the appeal’s availability.
- The Supreme Court, sua sponte, raised the constitutionality of Section 27, R.A. 6770 under Article VI, Section 30 of the 1987 Constitution and required supplemental briefs.
Statement of Facts
- Teresita G. Fabian was president and major stockholder of PROMAT Construction Development Corporation, a DPWH contractor.
- Nestor V. Agustin served as Assistant Regional Director, Region IV-A, DPWH and allegedly solicited an amorous relationship with Fabian.
- During the affair, Agustin awarded and intervened on behalf of PROMAT in government contracts.
- Upon attempt by Fabian to terminate their relationship, Agustin allegedly resorted to harassment, intimidation, and threats.
- Fabian filed an administrative complaint seeking Agustin’s dismissal for abuse of office and immoral conduct.
Issue
- Whether Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, which allows an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases under Rule 45, is constitutional under Article VI, Section 30 of the 1987 Constitution.
- Whether Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (Ombudsman Rules of Procedure) barring appeals from exoner