2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao

*
GR. No. 124295. October 23, 2001.

JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES, petitioner, vs. OFFICE

OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO, GRAFT
INVESTIGATION OFFICER II, MARIVIC A. TRABAJO-
DARAY, ANTONIO E. VALENZUELA in his capacity as
the Director for Fact Finding and Intelligence of the Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, and
MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR., in his capacity as
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, respondents.

Constitutional Law; Courts; Ombudsman; The Ombudsman

may not initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative
complaint before his office against petitioner judge, pursuant to his
power to investigate public officers.—The Ombudsman may not
initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint
before his office against petitioner judge, pursuant to his power to
investigate public officers. The Ombudsman must indorse the case
to the Supreme Court, for appropriate action.

_______________

* EN BANC.

37

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 37

Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao

Same; Same; Same; 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.—Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution
exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative
supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ccc93fc27d25db6f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368

Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal

trial court clerk. Hence, 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. No other branch of government may intrude
into this power, without running afoul of the independence of the
judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Ombudsman.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PARDO, J.:
1
The case is a petition for certiorari assailing the propriety
of the Ombudsman’s action investigating petitioner
2
for
violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e).
On August 23, 1995, we promulgated 3
a decision in
Administrative Matter No. RTJ-94–1270. The antecedent
facts are as follows:

“x x x [P]ursuant to the government’s plan to construct its first

flyover in Davao City, the Republic of the Philippines
(represented by DPWH) filed an expropriation case against the
owners of the properties affected by the project, namely,
defendants Tessie Amadeo, Reynaldo Lao and Rev. Alfonso Galo.
The case was docketed as Special Civil Case No. 22, 052–93 and
presided by Judge Renato A. Fuentes.
“The government won the expropriation case. x x x
“As of May 19, 1994, the DPWH still owed the defendants-lot
owners, the total sum of P15,510,415.00 broken down as follows:

________________

1 Petition, Rollo, pp. 3–21.

2 Otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
3 Entitled “Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Renato A.
Fuentes, et al.”

38

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao

Dr. Reynaldo Lao—P 489,000.00

Tessie P. Amadeo—P 1,094,200.00
Rev. Alfonso Galo—P13,927,215.00

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ccc93fc27d25db6f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368

“In an order dated April 5, 1994, the lower court granted Tessie
Amadeo’s motion for the issuance of a writ of execution against
the DPWH to satisfy her unpaid claim. The Order was received by
DPWH (Regional XI) through its Legal Officer, Atty. Warelito
Cartagena. DPWH’s counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General,
received its copy of the order only on May 10,1994.
“On April 6, 1994, Clerk of Court Rogelio Fabro issued the
corresponding Writ of Execution. On April 15, 1994, the writ was
served by respondent Sheriff Paralisan to the DPWH-Region XI
(Legal Services) through William Nagar.
“On May 3, 1994, respondent Sheriff Paralisan issued a Notice
of Levy, addressed to the Regional Director of the DPWH, Davao
City, describing the properties subject of the levy as ‘All scrap
iron/junks found in the premises of the Department of Public
Works and Highways depot at Panacan, Davao City’ x x x.
The auction sale pushed through on May 18, 1994 at the
DPWH depot in Panacan, Davao City. Alex Bacquial emerged as
the highest bidder. xxx Sheriff Paralisan issued the corresponding
certificate of sale in favor of Alex Bacquial. x x x
“Meanwhile, Alex Bacquial, together with respondent Sheriff
Paralisan, attempted to withdraw the auctioned properties on
May 19, 1994. They were, however, prevented from doing so by
the custodian of the subject DPWH properties, a certain Engr.
Ramon Alejo, Regional Equipment Engineer, Regional Equipment
Services, DPWH depot in Panacan, Davao City. Engr. Alejo
claimed that his office was totally unaware of the auction sale,
and informed the sheriff that many of the properties within the
holding area of the depot were still serviceable and were due for
repair and rehabilitation.
“On May 20, 1994, Alex Bacquial 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 on the same date.
“On May 21, 1994, Alex Bacquial and Sheriff Paralisan 4
returned to the depot, armed with the lower court’s order.”

_______________

4 Petition, Annex “A”, Rollo, pp. 24–33.

39

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 39

Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao

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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ccc93fc27d25db6f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368

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 5
case and
directing Bacquial not to implement the writ.
However, on June 21, 1994, the lower court issued
another order upholding the validity of the writ of
execution issued in favor
6
of the defendants in Special Civil
Case No. 22, 052–93.
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, Supreme Court
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, on
September 21, 1994, the Department of Public Works and
Highways, through the Solicitor General, filed an
administrative complaint against Sheriff Norberto
Paralisan for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service,
7
in violation of Article IX, Section 36 (b) of P.D. No.
807.
After considering the foregoing facts, on August 23,
1995, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision, the
dispositive portion of which states:

“IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent NORBERTO PARALISAN,

Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (Branch XVII), Davao City, is
declared guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service, in violation of Section 36 (b), Article IX of PD 807.
Accordingly, respondent sheriff is DISMISSED from the service,
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits
and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or
instrumentality of the government, including governmentowned
or controlled corporations. The office of the Court Administrator is
directed to conduct an investigation on Judge Renato Fuentes and
to

________________

5 Ibid.
6 lbid.
7 Complaint, Records of A.M. No. RTJ-94–1270, pp. 51–71.

40

40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ccc93fc27d25db6f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368

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
repairable8 equipment which were unlawfully hauled by Alex
Bacquial.” (italics ours)

On January 15, 1996, Director Antonio E. Valenzuela

(hereafter, 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 9before the Supreme
Court with acts unbecoming of a judge.
On January 22, 1996, Director Valenzuela filed with the
Office of the
10
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao a criminal
complaint charging Judge Renato A. Fuentes with
violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3 (e).
On February 6, 1996, the Office of the Ombudsman-
Mindanao through Graft Investigation Officer II Marivic A.
Trabajo-Daray issued an order directing 11 petitioner to
submit his counter-affidavit within ten days.
On February 22, 1996, petitioner filed with the Office of
the Ombudsman-Mindanao a motion to dismiss complaint
and/or12manifestation to forward all records to the Supreme
Court.
On March 15, 1996, Graft Investigation Officer 13
Marivic
A. Trabajo-Daray denied 14
the motion of petitioner.
Hence, this petition.
The issue is whether the Ombudsman may conduct an
investigation of acts of a judge in the exercise of his official
functions

_______________

8 Rollo, p. 40.
9 Petition, Annex “B”, Memorandum, Office of the
OmbudsmanMindanao, Rollo, pp. 42–44.
10 Petition, Annex “D”, Rollo, pp. 46–47.
11 Petition, Annex “C”, Order, Rollo, p. 45.
12 Petition, Annex “E”, Rollo, pp. 97–107.
13 Petition, Annex “F”, Order, Rollo, pp. 108–113.
14 Filed on April 10, 1996. Petition, Rollo, pp. 3–23. On July 31, 2000,
we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 301–302).

41

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 41

Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ccc93fc27d25db6f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368

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.
Petitioner alleged that the respondent Ombudsman-
Mindanao committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he
initiated a criminal complaint against petitioner for
violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3 [e]. And he conducted
an investigation of said complaint against petitioner, Thus,
he encroached on the power of the Supreme Court of
administra tive 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.
We grant the petition.
Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the
Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides:

“Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.—The Office of the

Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and
duties: (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by
any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory
15
agency of Government, the investigation of such
cases.”
xxx      xxx      xxx
“Section 21 Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority,
Exceptions.—The Office of the Ombudsman shall have
disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of
the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and
agencies, including members of the Cabinet, local government,
government-owned or controlled corporations and their

________________

15 Republic Act No. 6770, Section 15.

42

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ccc93fc27d25db6f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368

Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao

subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by

16
impeachment or over Members of Congress and the Judiciary ,”
(italics ours)

Thus, the Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a

criminal or administrative complaint before his office
against petitioner judge, pursuant to his power to
investigate public officers. The Ombudsman must indorse
the case to the Supreme Court, for appropriate action.
Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively
vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision
over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding
Justice of the
17
Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial
court clerk.
Hence, 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. No other branch of
government may intrude into this power, without running
afoul of the independence 18
of the judiciary and the doctrine
of separation of powers.
Petitioner’s questioned order directing the attachment of
government property and issuing a writ of execution were
done in relation to his office, well within his official
functions. The order may be erroneous or void for lack or
excess of jurisdiction. However, whether or not such order
of execution was valid under the given circumstances, must
be inquired into in the course of the judicial action only by
the Supreme Court that is tasked to supervise the courts.
“No other entity or official of the Government, not the
prosecution or investigation service of any other branch,
not any functionary thereof, has competence to review a
judicial order or decision—whether final and executory or
not—and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a
criminal or administrative complaint for Tendering an
unjust judgment19
or order. That prerogative belongs to the
courts alone.”

_______________

16 Republic Act No. 6770, Section 21.

17 Sanz Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464, 466–467 [1993]; Judge
Dolalas v. Ombudsman-Mindanao, 333 Phil. 690, 695 [1996].
18 Maceda v. Vasquez, supra, Note 17.
19 De Vera v. Pelayo, 335 SCRA 281 (2000).

43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ccc93fc27d25db6f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 43

Bartocillo vs. Court of Appeals

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The

Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the case and refer the
complaint against petitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes to
the Supreme Court for appropriate action.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan,

Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-
Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
     Vitug, J., On official leave.

Petition granted.

Note.—The authority of the Ombudsman to conduct

administrative investigations is mandated by no less than
the Constitution. (Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207 [1999])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ccc93fc27d25db6f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8