Case Digest 166-168

By: DJ

ANDREA TAN vs BAUSCH & LOMB, INC

GR No 148420
December 15, 2005

Facts:

Assailed in this petition for review are the decision of the CA which set aside
RTC decision denying the transfer of the Criminal Case to Branch 9 RTC Cebu
City. This case is an information for violation of paragraph 1, Article 189 of
RPC against petitioners Tan and others.

The respondent in this case want to transfer the Intellectual Property (IP) rights
case to RTC branch 9pursuant ti an AO NO. 113-95, designating the branch to
try and hear IP cases. On the other hand, the petitioner files a motion to quash
assailing the AO and cited BP 129 arguing that according to the said law
MTCC has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the crime committed by the
petitioners considering that the petitioners contention that RTC had no
jurisdiction and MTCC is the proper authority to decide, and considering further
respondent’s contention that MTC and MTCC were deleted and withdrawn as
special intellectual property courts.

Ruling:

Yes, RTC had the jurisdiction of this case.

Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) in part, of the 1987 Constitution, it empowers
the Supreme Court to “promulgate rules concerning…,pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts…”
 Case Digest 166-168
By: DJ

In this present case, the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case
because RTC branch so designated that will try and decide cases involving
violation of intellectual property rights, and cases formerly cognizable by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. It is now called a special commercial
court, which in Region VII, Branch 11, RTC, designated as special commercial
court. Therefore, the transfer of the case is warranted.

Judge Fuentes vs Office of the Ombudsman

GR No. 124295
October 23, 2001

NATURE Petition for certiorari

FACTS
 Pursuant to the government's plan to construct its first fly-over in Davao City, the
RP represented by the DPWH filed an expropriation case against the owners of
the properties affected by the project (namely, Tessie Amadeo, Reynaldo Lao and
Rev. Alfonso Galo). The case was presided by Judge Renato A. Fuentes.
 The gov’t won the expropriation case.
 The properties subject of the levy as described as all scrap iron/junks found in the
premises of the DPWH. An auction was conducted wherein Alex Bacquial
emerged as the highest bidder. However, Bacquial together with Sheriff Norberto
Paralisan attempted to withdraw the auctioned properties but they were prevented
from doing so because many of these were still serviceable and were due for
repair and rehabilitation. (as opposed to their classification as scrap iron/junk).
 Case Digest 166-168
By: DJ

 So Alex Baquial filed an ex-parte urgent motion for the issuance of a 'break
through' order to enable him to effect the withdrawal of the auctioned properties.
The motion was granted by Judge Fuentes that same day. Thus, Bacquial
succeeded in hauling off the scrap iron/junk equipment in the depot, including the
repairable equipment within the DPWH depot. He hauled equipment from the
depot for five successive days until the lower court issued another order
temporarily suspending the writ of execution it earlier issued in the expropriation
case and directing Bacquial not to implement the writ. The lower court issued
another order upholding the validity of the writ of execution.
 On the basis of letters from Congressman Manuel M. Garcia of the Second District
of Davao City and Engineer Ramon A. Alejo, the Court Administrator, the SC
directed Judge Renato A. Fuentes and Sheriff Norberto Paralisan to comment on
the report recommending the filing of an administrative case against the sheriff
and other persons responsible for the anomalous implementation of the writ of
execution. Also, the DPWH filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff
Norberto Paralisan for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, in
violation of Article IX, Section 36 (b) of P. D. No. 807.
 After considering the facts, the SC ordered the sheriff’s dismissal. From this order,
the office of the Court Administrator was also directed to conduct an investigation
on Judge Renato Fuentes and to charge him if the result of the investigation so
warrants. The Office of the Solicitor General is likewise ordered to take
appropriate action to recover the value of the serviceable or repairable equipment
which were unlawfully hauled by Alex Bacquial.
 Thus, Director Antonio E. Valenzuela of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao
recommended that petitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes be charged before the
Sandiganbayan with violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3 (e) and likewise
be administratively charged before the Supreme Court with acts unbecoming of a
judge. Fuentes, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao a motion to
dismiss complaint and/or manifestation to forward all records to the Supreme
Court. The motion was dismissed hence this petition.

FACTS:

On January 15, 1996, Director Valenzuela of the Office of the

Ombudsman-Mindanao recommended that petitioner Judge Fuentes be
charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Republic Act No. 3019,
Section 3 (e) and likewise be administratively charged before the Supreme
Court with acts unbecoming of a judge for the anomalous implementation of
 Case Digest 166-168
By: DJ

the writ of execution the petitioner issued. Petitioner alleged that the
respondent encroached on the power of the Supreme Court of administrative
supervision over all courts and its personnel. The Solicitor General submitted
that the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation because the Supreme
Court is not in possession of any record which would verify the propriety of the
issuance of the questioned order and writ. Moreover, the Court Administrator
has not filed any administrative case against petitioner judge that would pose
similar issues on the present inquiry of the Ombudsman-Mindanao.

ISSUE:

WON the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation of acts of a judge in the

exercise of his official functions alleged to be in violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, in the absence of an administrative charge for the same
acts before the Supreme Court, considering that the petitioner’s contention
that it is the SC having the authority to decide over the case, and considering
further the respondent’s contention that the Supreme Court is not in
possession of any record which would verify the propriety of the issuance of
the questioned order and writ.

RULING:

No, the Ombudsman must endorse the case to the Supreme Court, for
appropriate action.

Under the 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 6 provides that “ The
Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof,” from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the
lowest municipal trial court clerk.

In this present case, it is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the
judges and court personnel and take the proper administrative action against
them if they commit any violation of the laws of the land. It is only the SC who
has the competence to review a judicial order or decision, without running
afoul of the independence of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of
powers.
 Case Digest 166-168
By: DJ

Judge Caoiles vs Ombudsman

GR No. 132177
July 19, 2001

FACTS:

Judgest Jose Caoibes, Jr. and Florentino Alumbres were embroiled in an

altercation resulting to the latter filing before the Office of the Ombudsman a
criminal complaint for physical injuries, malicious mischief and assault upon a
person in authority against the former. Alumbres also filed an administrative
case against Caoibes with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has exclusive jurisdiction over
the matter, considering that the petitioner’s contention that the SC is the
competent authority to the matter, not the Ombudsman, and considering
further that the respondent’s contention that, Section 15 (1) of Republic Act No.
6770, it is within its jurisdiction to investigate the criminal charges of
respondent Judge against petitioner.

HELD:

No, the Ombudsman has no authority.

 Case Digest 166-168
By: DJ

Under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it is the Supreme Court
which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel.

In this present case, the Ombudsman only has primary and not exclusive
jurisdiction over the case. It cannot deprive the SC of its constitutionally vested
power of administrative supervision over all courts and personnel. The
Ombudsman is duty bound to refer all cases against judges and its personnel
to the SC to determine whether administrative cases involved therein.

Hence, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a
criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves administrative
matter.

In support:

The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and
the personnel thereof. [Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution]

The Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative

complaint before his office against a judge; he must first indorse the case to the
Supreme Court for appropriate action [Fuentes v. Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao, G.R. No. 124295, October 23, 2001] The
investigation conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Supreme
 Case Digest 166-168
By: DJ

Court’s power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in
violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. [Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. No.
102781, April 22, 1993] The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases
against judges and court personnel filed before, referred to the Supreme Court
for determination as to whether an administrative aspect is involved therein.
[Judge Caoibes, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001]