Case Summary (G.R. No. 189028)
Factual Background
Petitioner certified that all civil and criminal cases submitted for decision within 90 days had been decided by January 31, 1989. Respondent Abiera alleged in his affidavit-complaint that five civil and ten criminal cases remained undecided, and that petitioner similarly misrepresented his case load in certificates covering 17 months through September 1990.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Supreme Court extension – Petitioner asserts he had received a 90-day extension to decide the cases, rendering the certificates accurate.
- Jurisdiction – He contends that under Orap v. Sandiganbayan, judicial acts fall exclusively under Supreme Court supervision and that the Ombudsman lacks authority to investigate judicial functions.
- Separation of powers – Investigation by the Ombudsman encroaches on the judiciary’s independence and the Supreme Court’s constitutional duty.
Respondent’s Position
The Ombudsman relies on its constitutional mandate (Article XI, Sec. 13) to investigate public officials for illegal or improper acts, asserting authority to examine petitioner’s certificates and compel evidence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Orap and Jurisdiction
The Court clarifies that Orap did not confine Ombudsman jurisdiction to non-official acts. A judge’s falsification is both an administrative offense (serious misconduct under Rule 140, Sec. 1) and a criminal act under the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the Ombudsman can entertain such complaints in principle.
Separation of Powers and Administrative Supervision
Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution vests exclusive administrative supervision of all courts and personnel in the Supreme Court. The Ombudsman’s direct investigation into judicial certificates, absent prior Supreme Court action, intrudes upon this exclusive domain and undermines judicial independence.
Rationale for Referral Requirement
Because the question whether a judge granted a time extension must report undecided cases in the certificate of service is an unresolved administ
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189028)
Factual Background
- Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda serves as Presiding Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Antique.
- On April 18, 1991, Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera of the Public Attorney’s Office filed an affidavit‐complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.
- The complaint alleged that Judge Maceda falsified his Certificate of Service (Judicial Form No. 86, revised 1986) dated February 6, 1989, by certifying that “all civil and criminal cases submitted for decision or determination for a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before January 31, 1989,” despite knowing that five civil and ten criminal cases remained undecided.
- Abiera further claimed that similar falsifications occurred in certificates of service for February–August 1989 and January–September 1990, spanning a total of seventeen months.
- Judge Maceda countered that he had been granted by the Supreme Court a 90‐day extension to decide the cited cases.
Procedural History
- September 18, 1991: The Ombudsman denied Judge Maceda’s ex parte motion to refer the complaint to the Supreme Court.
- November 22, 1991: The Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration and directed petitioner to file a counter‐affidavit and other controverting evidence.
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order before the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented
- Whether th