View full case

TERESITA G. FABIAN v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

FACTS:

The case involves petitioner Teresita G. Fabian's administrative case against respondent Nestor V. Agustin for grave misconduct. Fabian alleges that Agustin engaged in an amorous relationship with her, used his position to benefit her company, and harassed her when she tried to end the relationship. The Ombudsman initially found Agustin guilty and ordered his dismissal, but the decision was later reversed by Deputy Ombudsman Jesus F. Guerrero. Petitioner argues that she should be allowed to appeal the Ombudsman's decision to the Supreme Court, while respondents argue that the Ombudsman has the power to limit appeals against its decisions.

The case also raises the issue of the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases against public officials. The Court observes that the Civil Service Commission's decisions are appealable to the Court of Appeals, while the Ombudsman's decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court. The Court points out the possibility of conflicting decisions and the need for consolidation of cases. The Court also emphasizes the obligation of all government departments to abide by the constitution and its provisions.

The petitioner files a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in order to appeal the Ombudsman's Joint Order absolving the respondent from the charges of grave misconduct. The petitioner argues that the appeal is allowed under the Ombudsman Act of 1987 and the Office of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure. The validity of Section 7 of the Rules of Procedure is also challenged, although the parties did not specifically address this in their submissions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, which authorizes an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, is constitutional.

  2. Whether Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, which provides for an unappealable final decision of the Ombudsman when a respondent is absolved of charges, is valid.

RULING:

  1. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 is declared unconstitutional as it violates Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits any law from increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent.

  2. Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, along with any provisions of law or issuances implementing the aforesaid Republic Act No. 6770, is likewise declared invalid in so far as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Constitutional Provisions on Appellate Jurisdiction: Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that no law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent.

  2. Judicial Review and Statutes: Courts are obligated to observe and enforce constitutional provisions, overriding any statutory provisions that conflict with the Constitution.

  3. Difference between Rule 45 and Rule 65 Petitions: Rule 45 pertains to appeals on questions of law from lower court decisions, while Rule 65 involves special civil actions for certiorari challenging jurisdictional errors.

  4. Procedural Law vs. Substantive Law: Procedural laws regulate the judicial process and the means of enforcing substantive rights and duties, whereas substantive laws create and define those rights and duties.

  5. Jurisdictional Transfer and Procedural Changes: The transfer of cases from one court to another is considered procedural and does not infringe on substantive rights.