JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS vs. OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

G.R. No.
118808 December 24, 1996

JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS vs. OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO and BENJAMIN
VILLARANTE, JR.
ROMERO, J.:p
Under consideration is the petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order
dated January 16, 1995. Petitioners, Judge Dolalas, Evelyn K. Obido and Wilberto B. Carriedo — Presiding Judge,
Clerk of Court and Clerk II, respectively of the MCTC 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 for an unreasonable length of time" before public respondent Office of the Ombudsman-
Mindanao.
The letter-complaint addressed to the OMB-Mindanao 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 . 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.
Villarante 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.
On the basis of the letter-complaint filed by herein private respondent, Graft Investigation Officer I
Dayanghirang of public respondent OMB-Mindanao directed petitioners to submit their respective
counter-affidavits. Petitioners' MTD as well as their MR were denied by public respondent, hence the petition
before this Court.
Petitioners pray that for the preservation of their rights pending this proceeding, a preliminary injunction and/or
restraining order be issued against the OMB-Mindanao commanding said office to desist from further proceeding
with the case against the petitioners. A TRO 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
ISSUE:
Whether or not the OMB may take cognizance of the complaint against petitioner for purposes of investigation
and prosecution in accordance with its mandate under Section 13 (1) and (2) of Article XI of the Constitution 3 for
alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.4
RULING:
Petitioner-judge contends that the OMB 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.
Respondent OMB-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 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.
This Court agrees with petitioner-judge. The complaint against petitioner-judge before the OMB is
basically administrative in nature. In essence, she is being charged with having violated Rule 1.02, Canon
16 and Rule 3.05, Canon 37 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The resolution of the administrative charge of unduly delaying the disposition of the criminal case involves the
determination of whether, in resolving the alarms and scandals case, she acted in accordance with 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.
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.

JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS vs. OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS vs. OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS vs. OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

118808 December 24, 1996

You might also like