Fabian v.

Desierto
GR No. 129742
September 16, 1998

Sec. 30 Art. 6 of the Constitution: No law shall be passed increasing the

appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution
without its advice and concurrence.
FACTS:
Petitioner Teresita G. Fabian the major stockholder and president of
PROMAT Construction Development Corporation engaged in the construction
business. PROMAT participated in the bidding for government construction
project including those under FMED wherein the respondent Nestor V. Agustin
was the incumbent District Engineering District. Respondent supposedly taking
advantage of his official position inveigled petitioner into an amorous
relationship. Their affair lasted for some time, in the course of which, private
respondent gifted PROMAT with public works contracts and interceded for it in
problems concerning the same in his office. When petitioner tried to terminate
their relationship, private respondent refused and resisted her attempts to do
so to the extent of employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats.
Afterwards petitioner filed a administrative case against him dated July 24,
2005. The complaint sought the dismissal of Agustin for violation of Section 19,
R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Section 36 of P.D. No. 807 (Civil
Service Decree), with an ancillary prayer for his preventive suspension. The
Ombudsman found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and ordering his
dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits under law. The
respondent then filed for reconsideration, after which the Ombudsman found
that the respondent's new counsel had been his classmate and close associate,
hence, he inhibited himself. The case was then transferred to the Deputy
Ombudsman who exonerated respondent from the administrative charges.
ISSUE:
1.
Whether or not administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme
Court under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6670?
HELD:

1.
No, The Court held that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6670 is declared
invalid and of no further force and effect(unconstitutional). This is due to the
fact that it violates the proscription under Sec. 30 Art. 6 of the Constitution that
a law cannot be passed that increase the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court without its advice and concurrence. There being no countervailing
argument cogently presented to justify the disregard of this constitutional
prohibition which was intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control
over cases placed under its appellate jurisdiction, otherwise, the indiscriminate
enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily
burden the Supreme Court.