Dolalas V Ombudsman

JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS, EVELLYN K. OBIDO AND WILBERTO B.
CARRIEDO, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO and
BENJAMIN VILLARANTE, JR., respondents.
G.R. No. 118808 December 24, 1996
FACTS: Under consideration is the petition for certiorari with prayer for
preliminary injunction and/or restraining order dated January 16, 1995.
Petitioners, Judge Ana Maria I. Dolalas, Evelyn K. Obido and Wilberto B.
Carriedo Presiding Judge, Clerk of Court and Clerk II, respectively of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kabasalan, Zamboanga del Sur, were charged
"administratively" by private respondent Benjamin Villarante, Jr. for "miscarriage
of justice, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, unnecessary delay in the
administration of justice and for failure to prosecute Criminal Case no. 5881 for
an unreasonable length of time" before public respondent Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao.
The letter-complaint addressed to the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao dated

July 6, 1994 arose out of said criminal case of alarms and scandals filed against
private respondent by a police officer. Private respondent alleged that after
submitting his counter-affidavit relative to the said criminal case before
petitioner's court, there has been no pre-conference, arraignment or pre-trial held
or conducted by petitioner judge. Private respondent claimed that the said
criminal case was maliciously filed by one P/Sgt. Salutillo in connivance with
petitioner judge in order to discourage the former from instituting a criminal
complaint against said police officer's men for abuse of authority and police
brutality with physical injury. 1
Private respondent also claimed that said criminal case filed against him has
been unnecessarily delayed in that P/Sgt. Salutillo and petitioner-judge "totally
failed to prosecute" their own malicious action within a reasonable length of time
thus prejudicing the constitutional right of the former to an impartial investigation
and a fair and speedy trial. Said criminal case against private respondent also
held in abeyance his own complaint against the police officers allegedly to his
prejudice. 2
On the basis of the letter-complaint filed by herein private respondent, Graft

Investigation Officer I Melinda Alconsel Dayanghirang of public respondent Office
of the Ombudsman-Mindanao directed petitioners to submit their respective
counter-affidavits. Petitioners' motion to dismiss dated September 14, 1994 as
well as their motion for reconsideration dated December 2, 1994 were denied by
public respondent, hence the petition before this Court.
In this petition, petitioners pray that for the preservation of their rights pending
this proceeding, a preliminary injunction and/or restraining order be issued
against the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao commanding said office to
desist from further proceeding with the case against the petitioners. A temporary
restraining order was issued by this Court in a resolution dated May 23, 1995.
Petitioner was basically being charged with "undue delay in the disposition of the
said criminal case" filed before petitioner's court. The issue posed, therefore, in
this petition is whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman may take cognizance
of the complaint against petitioner for purposes of investigation and possible
prosecution in accordance with its mandate under Section 13 (1) and (2) of
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution 3 for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. 4
Petitioner-judge contends that the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction

to initiate an investigation into the alleged "undue delay in the disposition of the
case" as said charge relates to a judge's performance of her official duties over
which the Supreme Court has administrative control and supervision, as
mandated under section 6, Rule VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Public respondent
Ombudsman-Mindanao, however, contends that referral to the Supreme Court is
not essential in this case as what will be investigated is not whether there was
undue delay in the disposition of a simple criminal case for five years, which it
admits is administrative in nature. It added that what is sought to be determined
by the investigation is whether or not any undue delay in the disposition of the
alarms and scandals case resulted in injury to private respondent through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence and/or
undue advantage to any party, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to initiate an

.
investigation into the alleged "undue delay in the disposition of the case"
HELD: The Court agrees with petitioner-judge. The complaint against petitioner-
judge before the Office of the Ombudsman is basically administrative in nature.
In essence, petitioner-judge is being charged with having violated Rule 1.02,
Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
It must be borne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge of unduly
delaying the disposition of the said criminal case involves the determination of
whether, in resolving the alarms and scandals case, petitioner-judge acted in
accordance with the guidelines provided in the Rules of Court and in the
Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the ideals embodied in the Code of
Judicial Conduct. Such is clearly an administrative matter. Unquestionably, this
Court is mandated of the 1987 Constitution to assume under section 6, Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution to assume administrative supervision over all courts
and the personnel thereof.
This Court, in the case of Sanz Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464, held that:
Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme
Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court
clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the
judge's and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No Other
branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
Public respondent Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the

powers granted to it by the Constitution, for such a justification not only runs
counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers
to the Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel, but likewise
undermines the independence of the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Office of the Ombudsman-

Mindanao is DIRECTED to REFER the complaint filed by private respondent
Benjamin Villarante, Jr. to this Court for appropriate action.

Dolalas V Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dolalas V Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dolalas V Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS, EVELLYN K. OBIDO AND WILBERTO B.

G.R. No. 118808 December 24, 1996

The letter-complaint addressed to the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao dated

On the basis of the letter-complaint filed by herein private respondent, Graft

Petitioner-judge contends that the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction

ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to initiate an

Public respondent Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Office of the Ombudsman-

You might also like