Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Maceda v Vasquez 1993

DOCTRINE:

SEPARATION OF POWERS: Article VIII Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively


vests the SC administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel,
from Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the municipal trial
court clerk. Only the SC can oversee the judges and court personnels
compliance with all laws and take the proper administrative action against
them if they commit any violation.

Petitioners: Bonifacio Sanz Macedapresiding Judge, branch 12 RTC


Respondents: Hon Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez and Atty. Napoleon Abiera
Nature:
Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or
restraining order is whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a
criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of a judges certification
submitted to the SC.
Facts:
Petitioner seeks to review the following orders of the Office of the
Ombudsman: (1) order dated Sept 18 1991 denying the ex-parte motion to
refer to the SC filed by the petitioner; (2) order dated Nov 22 1991 denying
petitioners motion for reconsideration and directing petitioner to file his
counter-affidavit.
In respondents (Abiera) affidavit-complaint filed to the office of the
Ombudsman alleged that petitioner had falsified:
o Certificate of Service 1 dated Feb. 6, 1989 by certifying that all civil
and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision or
determination for a period of 90 days have been determined and
decided on or before Jan 31, 1989 when in truth, no decision had been
rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases.
o Certificate of service for months of: Feb, April, May, Aug in 1989; JanSept 1990 (total 17 months)
Petitioner contends that:
o He had been granted by this Court an extension of 90 days to decide
aforementioned cases.
o Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over said case (despite ruling in ORAP
v Sandiganbayan) since the charge is from his performance of his
official duties, w/c is under supervision of the SC
o investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes encroachment into SC
constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts.
ISSUE/HELD:

WON the Office of the Ombudsman can entertain a criminal complaint for an
alleged falsification of a judges certification submitted to the SC-- NO
o A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable
to the SC for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Sec1 Rule 140
of Rules of Court, and criminally liable under the RPC
o In the absence of administrative action taken against him, the Court
investigation conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into Courts
power of administrative supervision
o ART VIII, Section 6exclusively vests the SC administrative
supervision over all courts and court personnel.
o Ombudsman should first refer the matter to the Court for
determination
o Ombudsman cannot resolve present criminal complaint and should
defer action on said complaint and refer the action to this Court for
determination.

Petition GRANTED. Ombudsman directed to dismiss the complaint.