G.R. No.

124295            October 23, 2001

FACTS:
"[P]ursuant to the government's plan to construct its first fly-over in Davao City, the Republic (DPWH) filed an
expropriation case against the owners of the properties affected by the project, namely, defendants Amadeo,
Lao and Galo. The case was presided by Judge 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:
Dr. Reynaldo Lao -P 489,000.00, Tessie P. Amadeo-P 1,094,200.00 Rev. Alfonso Galo-P 13,927,215

"The lower court granted 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 through its Legal Officer, Atty. Cartagena. DPWH's
counsel, the OSG, received its copy of the order. The Clerk of Court Fabro issued the corresponding WOE and
was served by respondent Sheriff Paralisan.

Respondent Sheriff issued a Notice of Levy, addressed to the RD of the DPWH, Davao City. "The auction sale
pushed through at the DPWH depot in Panacan, Davao City. Alex Bacquial as the highest bidder, Paralisan
issued the corresponding certificate of sale.

" Bacquial, and Sheriff Paralisan, attempted to withdraw the auctioned properties but were prevented by the
custodian of the subject DPWH properties, a certain Engr. Alejo, Regional Equipment Engineer who claimed that
his office was unaware of the auction sale, and informed the sheriff that the properties within the the depot
were still serviceable and due for repair and rehabilitation.

Alex Bacquial filed an ex-parte urgent motion for the issuance of a 'break through' order to enable him to
withdraw the auctioned properties. The motion was granted by Judge Fuentes on the same date.

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 for 5 successive days until the lower court issued another
order temporarily suspending the WOE it earlier issued in the expropriation case and directing Bacquial not to
implement the writ.

The lower court issued another order upholding the validity of the writ of execution issued in favor of the
defendants in Special Civil Case.

The SC directed Judge Fuentes and Sheriff 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. The DPWH, through the OSG, filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Paralisan for
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, in violation of Article IX, Section 36 (b) of P. D. No. 807. After
considering the foregoing the Court promulgated a decision states:

"IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent PARALISAN, Sheriff IV, RTC 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,

. The office of the Court Administrator is directed to conduct an investigation on Judge Renato Fuentes and to
charge him if the result of the investigation so warrants . The OSG is likewise ordered to take appropriate action
to recover the value of the serviceable or repairable equipment which were unlawfully hauled by Alex
Bacquial."8 

Director Valenzuela of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao recommended that petitioner Judge Fuentes be
charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3 (e) and likewise be
administratively charged before the SC with acts unbecoming of a judge.

Valenzuela filed with the Deputy OMB for Mindanao a criminal complaint charging Judge Fuentes with violation of
Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3 (e). The Office of the OMB-Mindanao through GIO- II Trabajo-Daray issued an
order directing petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit within ten days. Petitioner filed with the OMB-Mindanao a
motion to dismiss complaint and/or manifestation to forward all records to the Supreme Court. Trabajo-Daray
denied the motion of petitioner. Hence, this petition.14

ISSUE:

Whether the OMB may conduct an investigation of acts of a judge in the exercise of his official functions 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.

Fuentes alleged that the OMB committed a GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he initiated a
criminal complaint against him for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and he encroached on the power of the SC.

RULING:
The OSG submitted that the OMB may conduct an investigation because the SC is not in possession of any record
which would verify the propriety of the issuance of the questioned order and writ.

Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides:

"Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The OMB 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 agency of Government, the investigation of such cases." 15

"Section 21. Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority, Exceptions .- The OMB 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 subsidiaries,  except over
officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary ."

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.

The Constitution exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. It is the SC 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.

Only by the SC 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 rendering an unjust judgment or order. That prerogative belongs to the courts alone."

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.