Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA v. OMBUDSMAN CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

This case has been cited 12 times or more.

	AM No. P-15-3304 2015-07-01	MELQUIADES A. ROBLES v. 1) CLERK OF COURT V DUKE THADDEUS R. MAOG PEREZ, J.
Since both respondents are employees of the court, the Ombudsman deemed it proper to dismiss the complaint and refer the matter to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. The referral was in consideration of the Court's ruling in Maceda v. Vasquez[3] and Judge Caoibes v. Hon. Ombudsman[4] and in compliance with the Office Memorandum dated 31 July 2003 issued by the Ombudsman.[5]
	AM No. 09-8-6-SC 2012-06-13	RE: REQUEST FOR COPY OF 2008 STATEMENT OF ASSETS MENDOZA, J.
With respect to investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman in a criminal case against a judge, the Court, in Maceda v. Vasquez,[49] upheld its constitutional duty to exercise supervision over all inferior courts and ruled that an investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman without prior referral of the criminal case to the Court was an encroachment of a constitutional duty that ran afoul to the doctrine of separation of powers. This pronouncement was further amplified in the abovementioned case of Caiobes. Thus: x x x Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether an administrative aspect is involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the Ombudsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because in determining whether an administrative matter is involved, the Court passes upon not only administrative liabilities but also administrative concerns, as is clearly conveyed in the case of Maceda v. Vasquez (221 SCRA 464[1993]).
	AM NO. P-04-1771 2011-09-05	ATTY. PACIFICO CAPUCHINO v. STENOGRAPHER MARIPI A. APOLONIO BRION, J.
This administrative case involves eight (8) personnel of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Santiago City, Isabela, Branch 2, namely: Branch Clerk of Court Romeo B. Aspiras; Stenographers Maripi A. Apolonio, Andrealyn M. Andres and Ana Gracia E. Santiago; Legal Researcher Carina C. Bretania; Interpreter Ma. Anita G. Gatcheco; Clerk IV Fe L. Alvarez; and Process Server Eugenio P. Taguba (respondents). They were charged with Grave Misconduct and Violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (Republic Act No. 4200) in two identical complaints, both dated January 20, 2003, filed by Atty. Pacifico Capuchino with the Office of the Ombudsman[1] (Ombudsman) and this Court.[2] The Ombudsman, in an Order[3] dated July 31, 2003, referred the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action, "considering that the respondents are court personnel"[4] who are under the administrative supervision of this Court.[5] It dismissed the criminal aspect of the complaint without prejudice to the outcome of the present administrative case against the respondents.
	AM No. RTJ-11-2272 2011-02-16	MARCIANO ALCARAZ v. JUDGE FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA PEREZ, J.
On 13 June 2006, the Ombudsman issued an Order[29] deferring action on the charge against the respondent, pursuant to the pronouncements of this Court in Maceda v. Vasquez[30] and Judge Caoibes, Jr. v. Hon. Ombudsman.[31] The complaint-affidavit was thus referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for the conduct of an appropriate investigation as to the possible administrative liability of the respondent.
	GR No. 185749 2009-12-16	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. HERMINIGILDO L. ANDAL CARPIO, J.
By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's administrative compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. This we have ruled in Maceda v. Vasquez[10] and have reiterated in the case of Ampong v. Civil Service Commission.[11] In Ampong, we also emphasized that in case of violation of the Civil Service Law by a court personnel, the standard procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint against a judicial employee before the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court.
	GR No. 167409 2009-03-20	RODOLFO B. GARCIA v. PRIMO C. MIRO PERALTA, J.
Maceda[28] is emphatic that by virtue of its constitutional power of 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, 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.[29]
	GR No. 167916 2008-08-26	SARAH P. AMPONG v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REYES, R.T., J.
However, the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is given exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and judicial personnel.[18] By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. It may take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.[19] Thus, this Court ruled that the Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of a judge on the powers granted to it by the Constitution. It violates the specific mandate of the Constitution granting to the Supreme Court supervisory powers over all courts and their personnel; it undermines the independence of the judiciary.[20]
	AM No. P-05-2056 2005-11-18	LUZ C. ADAJAR v. TERESITA O. DEVELOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
First, the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao should not have taken cognizance of the instant case the same being administrative in nature. As correctly pointed out by the OCA, it has been settled as early as the case of Maceda vs. Vasquez[18] 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 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.[19]
	GR No. 124295 2001-10-23	JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO PARDO, J.
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 Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk.[17]