Maceda Vs Sandiganbayan Case Digest
Maceda Vs Sandiganbayan Case Digest
Maceda Vs Sandiganbayan Case Digest
Vasquez
(1993)
FACTS:
Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, Presiding Judge of Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court of Antique
Respondent Napoleon A. Abiera is a PAO Lawyer
Respondent alleged that petitioner had falsified his Certificate of Service, 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 January 31, 1998," when in truth and in fact, petitioner knew that no
decision had been rendered in five (5) civil and ten (10) criminal cases that have been submitted for decision.
Respondent further alleged that petitioner similarly falsified his certificates of service for the several months in
1989; and the months beginning January up to September 1990, or for a total of seventeen (17) months.
ISSUE: whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged falsification
of a judge's certification submitted to the Supreme Court, and assuming that it can, whether a referral should be
made first to the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Contention:
1. Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over said case despite this Court's ruling in Orap vs.
Sandiganbayan, since the offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his official
duties, which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court.
2. The investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the Supreme Court's
constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts.
RULING: (Base on contentions)
1. The Court disagrees. There is nothing in the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses
committed by a judge unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service
is administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency under
Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal
Code for his felonious act.
2. However, we agree with petitioner that in the absence of any administrative action taken against
him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the
Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
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
judges' 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.
The 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.
Procedure to be observed by ombudsman regarding complaint against judge or other court employee The
Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner's certificates of service to this Court for determination of
whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records
to make such a determination . . . In fine, where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee
arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same
to this Court for determination whether said judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their
administrative duties.
Ombudsman cannot subpoena supreme court and its personnel
Reason: The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of government, to submit its
records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter, as suggested by public respondent Abiera in his
affidavitcomplaint. The rationale for the foregoing pronouncement is evident in this case. Administratively, the
question before Us is this: should a judge, having been granted by this Court an extension of time to decide
cases before him, report these cases in his certificate of service? As this question had not yet been raised with,
much less resolved by, this Court, how could the Ombudsman resolve the present criminal complaint that
requires the resolution of said question?
In fine, where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their administrative
duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to this Court for determination
whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.
Petition dismissed.