View full case

BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA v. OMBUDSMAN CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

FACTS:

Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, a judge, is being accused of falsifying his certificate of service by respondent Napoleon A. Abiera. In his complaint, Abiera alleged that petitioner certified that all civil and criminal cases that were submitted for decision or determination within a certain period had been decided when in fact, some cases were still pending. Abiera further claimed that petitioner falsified several other certificates of service over a period of seventeen months.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the criminal complaint against the judge for falsification of his certificates of service.

  2. Whether the referral of the complaint to the Supreme Court is necessary before the Ombudsman can proceed with its investigation.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the Ombudsman to dismiss the complaint filed by respondent Abiera and refer the same to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency, and criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code.

  • The Ombudsman's investigation of the judge's alleged falsification of certificates of service encroaches on the Supreme Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

  • Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution grants exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel to the Supreme Court.

  • The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of the judge based on its constitutional powers as it undermines the independence of the judiciary.

  • Where a criminal complaint against a judge or court employee arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action and refer the complaint to the Supreme Court for determination of whether the judge or court employee acted within the scope of their administrative duties.