16 - Fuentes v. Office of The Ombudsman Mindanao
16 - Fuentes v. Office of The Ombudsman Mindanao
SYNOPSIS
SYLLABUS
DECISION
PARDO, J : p
"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:
"The auction sale pushed through on May 18, 1994 at the DPWH
depot in Panacan, Davao City. Alex Bacquial emerged as the highest
bidder. . . . Sheriff Paralisan issued the corresponding certificate of sale
in favor of Alex Bacquial. . . .
"On May 20, 1994, Alex Bacquial filed an ex-parte urgent motion
for the issuance of a 'break through' order to enable him to effect the
withdrawal of the auctioned properties. The motion was granted by
Judge Fuentes on the same date.
"On May 21, 1994, Alex Bacquial and Sheriff Paralisan returned
to the depot, armed with the lower court's order." 4
However, on June 21, 1994, the lower court issued another order
upholding the validity of the writ of execution issued in favor of the defendants
in Special Civil Case No. 22, 052-93. 6
After considering the foregoing facts, on August 23, 1995, the Supreme
Court promulgated a decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
"IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent NORBERTO PARALISAN, Sheriff
IV, Regional Trial Court (Branch XVII), Davao City, 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, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to reemployment in any
branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations. 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 Office of
the Solicitor General 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 (italics ours)
On January 22, 1996, Director Valenzuela filed with the Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao a criminal complaint 10 charging Judge
Renato A. Fuentes with violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e).
On February 6, 1996, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao through
Graft Investigation Officer II Marivic A. Trabajo-Daray issued an order directing
petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit within ten days. 11
Hence, it is the Supreme Court 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. 18
Petitioner's questioned order directing the attachment of government
property and issuing a writ of execution were done in relation to his office, well
within his official functions. The order may be erroneous or void for lack or
excess of jurisdiction. However, whether or not such order of execution was
valid under the given circumstances, must be inquired into in the course of the
judicial action only by the Supreme Court that 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." 19
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. , C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ.,
concur.
Vitug, J., is on official leave.
Footnotes
1. Petition, Rollo , pp. 3-21.