G.R. No. 132177 . July 19, 2001.
JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN and JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES, respondents.

FACTS

On May 23, 1997, respondent Judge Florentino M. Alumbres filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (Case No. OMB-0-97-0903) against petitioner Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., both of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City. The complaint alleged that on May 20, 1997, petitioner boxed respondent at the Hall of Justice over a request to return a borrowed executive table, causing physical injuries and damaging respondent’s eyeglasses, and included a charge of assault upon a person in authority. On June 13, 1997, respondent also filed an administrative complaint (Adm. Case No. 97-387-RTJ) with the Supreme Court against petitioner based on the same facts, praying for his dismissal on grounds of grave misconduct. The Ombudsman required petitioner to file a counter-affidavit. Instead, petitioner filed an “Ex-Parte Motion for Referral to the Honorable Supreme Court,” arguing that the Supreme Court, having exclusive supervision over judges, should first make a preliminary determination of culpability. The Ombudsman denied this motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, invoking its jurisdiction under Section 15(1) of Republic Act No. 6770 and directing petitioner to file his counter-affidavit. Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari, seeking reversal of the Ombudsman’s orders and a directive for the Ombudsman to defer action pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the administrative case.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman should defer action on the criminal complaint (Case No. OMB-0-97-0903) pending resolution of the administrative case (Adm. Case No. 97-387-RTJ) by the Supreme Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Ombudsman was directed to dismiss the complaint and refer it to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. The Court held that under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution , the Supreme Court has exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. Following the precedent in Maceda vs. Vasquez, the Ombudsman is duty-bound to refer all cases against judges and court personnel to the Supreme Court for a determination of whether an administrative matter is involved. This rule applies regardless of whether an administrative case is already pending. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under R.A. 6770 is primary, not exclusive, and it cannot dictate to or bind the Court on the administrative implications of a case. To allow the Ombudsman to proceed without such referral would encroach upon the Court’s constitutional administrative prerogatives and violate the doctrine of separation of powers. The case involved two judges in an altercation within court premises, clearly falling under the Court’s administrative supervision.