G.R. No. A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC March 2, 2010
RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED JANUARY 11, 2010 OF ACTING DIRECTOR ALEU A. AMANTE, PIAB-C, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

FACTS

The Supreme Court considered three interrelated matters: (a) a subpoena duces tecum dated January 11, 2010, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court’s Office of Administrative Services, demanding the Personal Data Sheets and last known address of former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and former Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez in relation to a criminal complaint; (b) the criminal complaint entitled “Oliver O. Lozano and Evangeline Lozano-Endriano v. Hilario G. Davide, Jr., et al.” (OMB-C-C-09-0527-J), which was the basis for the subpoena; and (c) an Order dated February 4, 2010, from the Office of the Ombudsman, dismissing the said criminal complaint and referring it to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. The criminal complaint alleged that the retired Justices violated Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) based on their participation in a Supreme Court Resolution in the case of “Heirs of Antonio Pael v. Court of Appeals.” The complainants alleged the Justices overturned factual findings, misstated a survey report, and that three Justices set aside a decision voted on by five.

ISSUE

The primary issue was the legality and propriety of the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Ombudsman against retired Supreme Court Justices for acts performed in their judicial capacity. A corollary issue was the propriety of the criminal complaint itself and the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate such a complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the underlying criminal complaint rendered the question on the subpoena duces tecum moot and academic. However, the Court extensively discussed the limits of the Ombudsman’s authority in such matters as a guide. The Court ruled that a criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, based solely on the alleged legal incorrectness or “unjust” character of official acts performed by Supreme Court Justices in their judicial capacity, cannot prosper and should not be entertained. The Court reaffirmed the doctrine from “In re Wenceslao Laureta” and “In re Joaquin T. Borromeo” that parties cannot relitigate a final judgment of the Supreme Court in another forum. Only the Supreme Court itself can declare its own judgment to be unjust. To allow such complaints is a collateral attack on a final judgment, subordinates the judiciary to another body, and violates the constitutional principles of judicial independence, finality of judgments, and separation of powers. While the Ombudsman has investigatory power, it should not proceed with unwarranted investigations, especially those targeting impeachable officers or, as in this case, acts stemming from the exercise of judicial functions. The appropriate constitutional recourse against a sitting Supreme Court Justice is impeachment, not a criminal complaint before the Ombudsman. The Court found the criminal complaint to be without merit, as it merely sought to criminalize the Court’s judicial actions and dissent from its final ruling.