9/17/2015 A.M. No.

10-1-13-SC

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila


ENBANC

A.M.No.10113SC
RE:SUBPOENADUCESTECUM
DATEDJANUARY11,2010OF Present:
ACTINGDIRECTORALEUA.
AMANTE,PIABC,OFFICEOF PUNO,C.J.,
THEOMBUDSMAN CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,and
MENDOZA,JJ.

Promulgated:

March2,2010
xx
RESOLUTION

PERCURIAM:

Beforeusforconsiderationaretheinterrelatedmatterslistedbelow.

a. The subpoena duces tecum (dated January 11, 2010 and received by this Court on
January 18, 2010), issued by the Office of the Ombudsman on the Chief, Office of the
Administrative Services or AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, Supreme Court, Manila,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 1/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

forthesubmissiontotheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanofthelatestPersonalDataSheetsandlast
known forwarding address of former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and former
AssociateJusticeMa.AliciaAustriaMartinez.Thesubpoenaducestecumwasissuedinrelation
toacriminalcomplaintunder(b)below,pursuanttoSection13,ArticleXIoftheConstitutionand
Section15ofRepublicActNo.6770.TheOfficeoftheAdministrativeServices(OAS)referredthe
mattertousonJanuary21,2010witharequestforclearancetoreleasethespecifieddocumentsand
information.
b. Copy of the criminal complaint entitled Oliver O. Lozano and Evangeline Lozano
Endrianov.HilarioG.Davide,Jr.,etal.,OMBCC090527J,citedbytheOmbudsmanasbasis
forthethesubpoenaducestecumitissued.Wesecuredacopyofthiscriminalcomplaintfromthe
Ombudsmantodeterminethelegalityandproprietyofthesubpoenaducestecumsought.

c.OrderdatedFebruary4,2010(whichtheCourtreceivedonFebruary9,2010),signed
by Acting Director Maribeth TaytaonPadios of the Office of the Ombudsman (with the
approval of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas NavarroGutierrez), dismissing the Lozano
complaint and referring it to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. The order was
[1]
premised on the Memorandum issued on July 31, 2003 by Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo who
directed that all complaints against judges and other members of the Judiciary be immediately
dismissedandreferredtotheSupremeCourtforappropriateaction.


OURRULING

I.TheSubpoenaDucesTecum

InlightoftheOmbudsmansdismissalorderofFebruary4,2010,anyquestionrelatingtothe
legalityandproprietyofthesubpoenaducestecumtheOmbudsmanissuedhasbeenrenderedmoot
and academic. The subpoena duces tecum merely drew its life and continued viability from the
underlyingcriminalcomplaint,andthecomplaintsdismissalbelated though it may be cannot but
havetheeffectofrenderingtheneedforthesubpoenaducestecumacademic.

AsguideintheissuanceofcompulsoryprocessestoMembersofthisCourt,pastandpresent,
inrelationtocomplaintstouchingontheexerciseofourjudicialfunctions,wedeemitappropriate
todiscussfortherecordtheextentoftheOmbudsmansauthorityinthesetypesofcomplaints.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 2/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

Intheappropriatecase,theOfficeoftheOmbudsmanhasfullauthoritytoissuesubpoenas,
including subpoena duces tecum, for compulsory attendance of witnesses and the production of
[2]
documents and information relating to matters under its investigation. The grant of this
authority,however,isnotunlimited,astheOmbudsmanmustnecessarilyobserveandabidebythe
termsoftheConstitutionandourlaws,theRulesofCourtandtheapplicablejurisprudenceonthe
issuance, service, validity and efficacy of subpoenas. Under the Rules of Court, the issuance of
subpoenas,includingasubpoenaducestecum,operatesundertherequirementsofreasonableness
[3]
and relevance. For the production of documents to be reasonable and for the documents
themselves to be relevant, the matter under inquiry should, in the first place, be one that the
Ombudsmancanlegitimatelyentertain,investigateandruleupon.

Inthepresentcase,thematterthatgaverisetotheissuanceofasubpoenaducestecumwasa
criminalcomplaintfiledbythecomplainantsLozanofortheallegedviolationbyretiredSupreme
CourtChiefJusticeHilarioDavide,Jr.andretiredAssociateJusticeMa.AliciaAustriaMartinez
ofSection3(e)ofR.A.3019,asamended(theAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct).

A first step in considering whether a criminal complaint (and its attendant compulsory
processes)iswithintheauthorityoftheOmbudsmantoentertain(andtoissue),istoconsiderthe
natureofthepowersoftheSupremeCourt.ThisCourt,byconstitutionaldesign,issupremeinits
taskofadjudicationjudicialpowerisvestedsolelyintheSupremeCourtandinsuchlowercourts
as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts, not only to settle
actualcontroversies,butalsotodeterminewhethergraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackor
[4]
excessofjurisdictionhasbeencommittedinanybranchorinstrumentalityofgovernment. Asa
rule,alldecisionsanddeterminationsintheexerciseofjudicialpowerultimatelygotoandstopat
the Supreme Court whose judgment is final. This constitutional scheme cannot be thwarted or
subvertedthroughacriminalcomplaintthat,undertheguiseofimputingamisdeedtotheCourt
anditsMembers,seekstoreviveandrelitigatemattersthathavelongbeenlaidtorestbythe
Court.Effectively,suchcriminalcomplaintisacollateralattackonajudgmentofthisCourtthat,
byconstitutionalmandate,isfinalandalreadybeyondquestion.

AsimplejurisprudentialresearchwouldeasilyrevealthatthisCourthashadtheoccasionto
ruleontheliabilityofJusticesoftheSupremeCourtforviolationofSection3(e)ofR.A.3019the
verysameprovisionthatthecomplainantsLozanoinvokeinthiscase.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 3/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

[5]
In In re Wenceslao Laureta, the client of Atty. Laureta filed a complaint with the
TanodbayanchargingMembersoftheSupremeCourtwithviolationofSection3(e)ofRepublic
ActNo.3019forhavingknowingly,deliberatelyandwithbadfaithrenderedanunjustresolution
in a land dispute. The Court unequivocally ruled that insofar as this Court and its Divisions are
concerned, a charge of violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that
suchcollectivedecisionisunjustshouldnotprosperthepartiescannotrelitigateinanotherforum
the final judgment of the Court, as to do so is to subordinate the Court, in the exercise of its
[6]
judicialfunctions,toanotherbody.

[7]
InreJoaquinT.Borromeo reiteratestheLauretaruling,particularlythat(1)judgmentsof
theSupremeCourtarenotreviewable(2)administrative,civilandcriminalcomplaintsagainsta
judge should not be turned into substitutes for appeal (3) only courts may declare a judgment
unjustand(4)asituationwheretheOmbudsmanismadetodeterminewhetherornotajudgment
oftheCourtisunjustisanabsurdity.TheCourtfurtherdiscussedtherequisitesfortheprosecution
ofjudges,asfollows:

Thatisnottosaythatitisnotpossibleatalltoprosecutejudgesforthisimpropriety,ofrenderingan
unjustjudgmentorinterlocutoryorderbut,takingaccountofalltheforegoingconsiderations,the
indispensable requisites are that there be a final declaration by a competent court in some
appropriateproceedingofthemanifestlyunjustcharacterofthechallengedjudgmentororder,and
therebealsoevidenceofmaliceandbadfaith,ignoranceorinexcusablenegligenceonthepartof
thejudgeinrenderingsaidjudgmentororder.


Thus,consistentwiththenatureofthepowerofthisCourtunderourconstitutionalscheme,only
thisCourtnottheOmbudsmancandeclareaSupremeCourtjudgmenttobeunjust.

[8]
InAlzua v. Arnalot, the Court ruled that judges of superior and general jurisdiction are
not liable to respond in civil action for damages, and provided this rationale for this ruling:
Liabilitytoanswertoeveryonewhomightfeelhimselfaggrievedbytheactionofthejudgewould
beinconsistentwiththepossessionofthisfreedomandwoulddestroythatindependencewithout
which no judiciary can be either respectable or useful. The same rationale applies to the
indiscriminateattributionofcriminalliabilitytojudicialofficials.

Plainly,undertheserulings,acriminalcomplaintforviolationofSection3(e)ofRA3019,
basedonthelegalcorrectnessoftheofficialactsofJusticesoftheSupremeCourt,cannotprosper
andshouldnotbeentertained.ThisisnottosaythatMembersoftheCourtareabsolutelyimmune

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 4/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

from suit during their term, for they are not. The Constitution provides that the appropriate
recourseagainstthemistoseektheirremovalfromofficeiftheyareguiltyofculpableviolationof
the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public
[9]
trust. Only after removal can they be criminally proceeded against for their transgressions.
While in office and thereafter, and for their official acts that do not constitute impeachable
offenses,recoursesagainstthemandtheirliabilitiesthereforareasdefinedintheaboverulings.

Section 22 of Republic Act No. 6770, in fact, specifically grants the Ombudsman the
authoritytoinvestigateimpeachableofficers,butonlywhensuchinvestigationiswarranted:

Section22.InvestigatoryPower.TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanshallhavethepowertoinvestigate
anyseriousmisconductinofficeallegedlycommittedbyofficialsremovablebyimpeachment,forthe
purposeoffilingaverifiedcomplaintforimpeachment,ifwarranted.

Conversely,ifacomplaintagainstanimpeachableofficerisunwarrantedforlackoflegalbasisand
forclearmisapplicationoflawandjurisprudence,theOmbudsmanshouldsparetheseofficersfrom
the harassment of an unjustified investigation. The present criminal complaint against the retired
Justices is one such case where an investigation is not warranted, based as it is on the legal
correctness of their official acts, and the Ombudsman should have immediately recognized the
criminalcomplaintforwhatitis,insteadofinitiallyproceedingwithitsinvestigationandissuinga
subpoenaducestecum.

II.TheOmbudsmansDismissal
oftheCriminalComplant

AstheOmbudsmansdismissalofthecriminalcomplaint(OliverO.LozanoandEvangeline
LozanoEndriano v. Hilario G. Davide, Jr., et al., OMBCC090527J) clearly implied, no
complete dismissal took place as the matter was simply referred to the Supreme Court for
appropriateaction.

Althoughitwasbelatedlymade,wecannotfaultthisOmbudsmanactionforthereasonswe
havealreadydiscussedabove.Whilebothaccusedarenowretiredfromtheservice,thecomplaint
against them still qualifies for exclusive consideration by this Court as the acts complained of
spring from their judicial actions while they were with the Court. From this perspective, we
thereforepassupontheprimafaciemeritsofthecomplainantsLozanoscriminalcomplaint.

a.GroundsfortheDismissaloftheComplaint
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 5/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

Byitsexpressterms,thecriminalcomplaintstemmedfromtheparticipationoftheaccused
in the Resolution the First Division of this Court issued in Heirs of Antonio Pael v. Court of
Appeals, docketed as G.R. Nos. 133547 and 133843. The retired Chief Justice and retired
AssociateJusticeallegedlycommittedthefollowingunlawfulacts:

1)OverturningthefindingsoffactoftheCA

2) Stating in the Resolution that the ChinMallari property overlaps the UP property, when the DENR
SurveyReportstatedthattheUPtitle/propertyoverlapstheChinMallariproperty

3) Issuing a Resolution, for which three Justices voted, to set aside a Decision for which five Justices
voted.


By these acts, the retired Members of this Court are being held criminally accountable on
thetheorythattheyviolatedtheConstitutionandthelawintheirrulinginthecitedcases,thereby
causingundueinjurytothepartiestothesecases.

After due consideration, we dismiss the criminal complaint against retired Chief Justice
HilarioG.Davide,Jr.andretiredAssociateJusticeMa.AliciaAustriaMartinezunderSection3(e)
ofRA3019.Wefullyexpoundonthereasonsforthisconclusioninthediscussionsbelow.

a.Contrarytothecomplainantsposition,
theSupremeCourthasthepowertoreview
thelowercourtsfindingsoffact.

TheSupremeCourtisthehighestcourtofthelandwiththepowertoreview,revise,reverse,
modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
[10]
judgmentsandordersofthelowercourts. Ithastheauthoritytopromulgaterulesonpractice,
pleadings and admission to the bar, and suspend the operation of these rules in the interest of
[11]
justice. Jurisprudenceholds,too,thattheSupremeCourtmayexercisethesepowersoverthe
factualfindingsofthelowercourts,amongotherprerogatives,inthefollowinginstances:(1)when
thefindingsaregroundedentirelyonspeculations,surmises,orconjectures(2)whentheinference
madeismanifestlymistaken,absurdofimpossible(3)whenthereisgraveabuseofdiscretion(4)
when the judgment is based on a misappreciation of facts (5) when the findings of fact are
conflicting (6) when, in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both
appellantandappellee(7)whenthefindingsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt(8)whenthe

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 6/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

findingsareconclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased(9)when
thefactssetforthinthepetitionaswellasinthepetitionersmainandreplybriefsarenotdisputed
by the respondent and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
[12]
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. Thus, contrary to the complainants
Lozanoassertionsintheircomplaint,theSupremeCourt,inthepropercases,cananddoesrule
on factual submissions before it, and even reverses the lower courts factual findings when the
circumstancescallforthisaction.

b.ConstitutionalProvisionsweremisused.

ThecomplainantsLozanoappeartoustohavebrazenlymisquotedandmisusedapplicable
constitutionalprovisionstojustifytheircaseagainsttheretiredJustices.Wereferparticularlyto
their use (or strictly, misuse) of Article X, Section 2(3) of the 1973 Constitution which they
claimtobethegoverningrulethattheretiredJusticesshouldhavefollowedinactingonPael.This
constitutionalprovisionstates:
CasesheardbyadivisionshallbedecidedwiththeconcurrenceofatleastfiveMembers,but
ifsuchrequirednumberisnotobtainedthecaseshallbedecidedenbancProvided,thatnodoctrine
or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be
[13]
modifiedorreversedexceptbytheCourtsittingenbanc.

ForfailureoftheretiredJusticestoactaccordingtotheseterms,thecomplainantsclaimthatthe
formersubvertedtheConstitutionbyreversing,byavoteofamajorityofonlythreemembers,the
decisionoftheFirstDivisionunanimouslyapprovedbyitsfullmembershipoffivemembers.

HadthecomplainantsbotheredtocarefullyconsiderthefactsanddevelopmentsinPaeland
accordinglyrelatedthesetotheapplicableconstitutionalprovision, they would have discovered
thatPaelwasdecidedin2003whenthe1987Constitution,notthe1973Constitution, was the
prevailingCharter.Theythenwouldhaveeasilylearnedofthemannercasesareheardanddecided
byDivisionbeforetheSupremeCourtunderthe1987Constitution.Section4(3),ArticleVIIIof
thisConstitutionprovides:
Casesormattersheardbyadivisionshallbedecidedorresolvedwiththeconcurrenceofa
majorityoftheMemberswhoactuallytookpartinthedeliberationsontheissuesinthecaseand
votedthereon,andinnocase,withouttheconcurrenceofatleastthreeofsuchMembers.When
therequirednumberisnotobtained,thecaseshallbedecidedenbancProvided,thatnodoctrineor
principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be
modifiedorreversedexceptbythecourtsittingenbanc.(Emphasissupplied.)

Thiswastheprovisionthatgovernedin2003andstillgovernstothisday.Thus,thecomplainants

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 7/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

argumentandbasisfortheircriminalcomplaintthatinrulingonamotionforreconsideration,all
fivemembersoftheDivisionshouldconcuristotallywrong.

c.Theelementsoftheoffensechargedare
notsufficientlyallegedinthecomplaint

[14]
ApublicofficialcanviolateSection3(e)ofRepublicActNo.3019 intwoways:(1)by
causingundueinjurytoanyparty,includingtheGovernmentor(2)bygivinganyprivatepartyany
[15]
unwarrantedbenefit,advantageorpreference ineithercase,theseactsmustbecommittedwith
manifestpartiality,evidentbadfaith,orgrossandinexcusablenegligence.

Partiality is defined as a bias or disposition to see and report matters as wished for, rather
than as they are. Bad faith connotes not only bad judgment or negligence, but also a dishonest
purpose,aconsciouswrongdoing,orabreachofdutyamountingtofraud.Grossnegligence,onthe
otherhand,ischaracterizedbythewantofevenslightcare,actingoromittingtoactinasituation
where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious
[16]
indifferencetoconsequencesasfarasotherpersonsareconcerned.

Thecriminalcomplaintinthiscasefailedtoallegethefactsandcircumstancesshowingthat
the retired Justices acted with partiality, bad faith or negligence. A judicial officers act in
reviewingthefindingsoffactinadecisionandvotingforitsreversalcannotbyitselfconstitutea
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in the absence of facts, alleged and proven,
demonstratingadishonestpurpose,consciouspartiality,extrinsicfraud,oranywrongdoingonhis
orherpart.Acomplainantsmeredisagreementwiththemagistratesownconclusions,tobesure,
doesnotjustifyacriminalchargeunderSection3(e)againstthelatter.Intheabsenceofalleged
andprovenparticularactsofmanifestpartiality,evidentbadfaithorgrossinexcusablenegligence,
good faith and regularity are generally presumed in the performance of official duties by public
[17]
officers.

Forthecriminalcomplaintsfatalomissionsandresultantfailuretoallegeaprimafaciecase,
itrightfullydeservesimmediatedismissal.

III.TheComplainantsPotentialLiability
forFilingtheOmbudsmanComplaint

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 8/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

In light of the above conclusions and under the attendant circumstances of the criminal
complaints, we cannot avoid considering whether the complainants Lozano acted properly as
membersoftheBar,asofficersofthisCourt,andasprofessionalsgovernedbynormsofethical
behavior,infilingtheircomplaint.

Intheircriminalcomplaint,thecomplainantsgaveaslantedviewofthepowersofthisCourt
tosuittheirpurposesforthesesamepurposes,theywronglycitedandmisappliedtheprovisions
of the Constitution, not just any ordinary statute. As lawyers, the complainants must be familiar
andwellacquaintedwiththefundamentallawoftheland,andarechargedwiththedutytoapply
the constitutional provisions in light of their prevailing jurisprudential interpretation. As law
practitionersactiveinthelegalandpoliticalcircles,thecomplainantscanhardlybecharacterized
asunknowingintheirmisuseandmisapplicationofconstitutionalprovisions.Theyshould,atthe
veryleast,knowthatthe1973Constitutionanditsprovisionshavebeensupersededbythe1987
Constitution, and that they cannot assail invoking the 1973 Constitution the judicial acts of
membersoftheSupremeCourtcarriedoutin2003whenthe1987Constitutionwasineffect.Their
misuseoftheConstitutionismademorereprehensiblewhentheoverridingthrustoftheircriminal
complaintisconsideredtheyusedthe1973provisionstofalselyattributemaliceandinjusticeto
theSupremeCourtanditsMembers.
Inourview,thecomplainantserrorsdonotbelongtothegenreofplainandsimpleerrors
that lawyers commit in the practice of their profession. Their plain disregard, misuse and
misrepresentation of constitutional provisions constitute serious misconduct that reflects on their
fitnessforcontinuedmembershipinthePhilippineBar.Attheveryleast,theirtransgressionsare
blatantviolationsofRule10.02oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichprovides:

Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
languageortheargumentofopposingcounsel,orthetextofadecisionorauthority,orknowingly
citeasalawaprovisionalreadyrenderedinoperativebyrepealoramendment,orassertasa
factthatwhichhasnotbeenproved.(Emphasisprovided.)

Toemphasizetheimportanceofrequiringlawyerstoactcandidlyandingoodfaith,anidentical
provision is found in Cannon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Moreover, lawyers are
sworntodonofalsehood,norconsenttothedoingofanyincourtbeforetheyareevenadmittedto
theBar.Allthesethecomplainantsappeartohaveseriouslyviolated.

In the interest of due process and fair play, the complainants Lozano should be heard, in
relationtotheircriminalcomplaintbeforetheOmbudsmanagainstretiredChiefJusticeHilarioG.
Davide,Jr.andretiredAssociateJusticeMa.AliciaAustriaMartinez,onwhytheyshouldnotbe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 9/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

held accountable and accordingly penalized for violations of their duties as members of the Bar
andofficersofthisCourt,andoftheethicsofthelegalprofession.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weDISMISS the criminal complaint entitled Oliver
O.Lozano,etal.v.HilarioG.Davide,Jr.,etal.,OMBCC090527Jforutterlackofmerit,and
DECLARE as MOOT and ACADEMIC the question of compliance with the subpoena duces
tecumdatedJanuary11,2010thattheOmbudsmanissuedagainstthisCourt.

WeherebyORDERthecomplainantsAtty.OliverO.LozanoandAtty.EvangelineLozano
Endriano to EXPLAIN IN WRITING to this Court, within a nonextendible period of 15 days
from receipt of this Resolution, why they should not be penalized as members of the Bar and as
officers of this Court, for their open disregard of the plain terms of the Constitution and the
applicable laws and jurisprudence, and their misuse and misrepresentation of constitutional
provisions in their criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, entitled Oliver O.
Lozano,etal.v.HilarioG.Davide,Jr.,etal.,OMBCC090527J.


SOORDERED.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice




ANTONIOT.CARPIO RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 10/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice




LUCASP.BERSAMIN

AssociateJustice MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice


ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice


JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

[1]
ThepertinentpartoftheMemorandumreads:
Henceforth,onthebasisoftheforegoing,andinkeepingwiththespiritofthestateddoctrine,allcriminalcomplaintsagainst
judged and other members of the Supreme Court shall be immediately DISMISSED and REFERRED to the Supreme Court for
appropriateaction.Thedismissalshallnotinanymannertouchonthemeritsofthecomplaint,andshallbemadeforthesolepurposeof
referringthesametotheSupremeCourt.(emphasisfoundintheoriginal.)
[2]
Section15ofRep.ActNo.6770reads:
Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers
functionsandduties:
xxxx

(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as it may
provide in its rules of procedure, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or
transactionsenteredintobyhisofficeinvolvingthedisbursementoruseofpublicfundsorproperties,
andreportanyirregularitytotheCommissiononAuditforappropriateaction
(5)Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its
responsibilities,andtoexamine,ifnecessary,pertinentrecordsanddocuments.
Paragraphs4and5ofSection13,RuleXIoftheConstitutionaresimilarlyphrased:

Section13.TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanshallhavethefollowingfunctionsandduties:
xxxx
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be
providedbylaw,tofurnishitwithcopiesofdocumentsrelatingtocontractsortransactionsenteredinto
byhisofficeinvolvingthedisbursementoruseofpublicfundsorproperties,andreportanyirregularity
totheCommissiononAuditforappropriateaction.
(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information in the discharge of its
responsibilities,andtoexamine,ifnecessary,pertinentrecordsandinformation.
[3]
See:Sections3and4,Rule21,RulesofCourt.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 11/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC
[4]
CONSTITUTION,ArticleVIII,Section1.
[5]
232Phil353(1987).
[6]
ToquotethepertinentportionsofLaureta,pp.384388:

AsaptlydeclaredintheChiefJusticesStatementofDecember24,1986,whichtheCourtherebyadoptsintoto,
ItiselementarythattheSupremeCourtissupremethethirdgreatdepartmentofgovernmententrustedexclusivelywith
thejudicialpowertoadjudicatewithfinalityalljusticiabledisputespublicandprivate.Nootherdepartmentoragency
maypassuponitsjudgmentsordeclarethemunjust.Itiselementarythat(A)shaseverbeenstressedsincetheearlycase
ofArnedov.Llorente(18Phil257,263[1911])controllingandirresistiblereasonsofpublicpolicyandofsoundpractice
inthecourtsdemandthatattheriskofoccasionalerror,judgmentofcourtsdeterminingcontroversiessubmittedtothem
shouldbecomefinalatsomedefinitetimefixedbylaworbyaruleofpracticerecognizedbylaw,soastobethereafter
beyond the control even of the court which rendered them for the purpose of correcting errors of fact or of law, into
which,intheopinionofthecourtitmayhavefallen.

RespondentsshouldhaveknownthattheprovisionsofArticle204oftheRevisedPenalCodeastorendering
knowinglyunjustjudgmentrefertoanindividualjudgewhodoessoinanycasesubmittedtohimfordecisionandeven
then,itisnottheprosecutorwhowouldpassjudgmentontheunjustnessofthedecisionrenderedbyhimbuttheproper
appellate court with jurisdiction to review the same, either of the Court of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court.
Respondentsshouldlikewiseknowthatsaidpenalarticlehasnoapplicationtothemembersofacollegiatecourtsuch
as this Court or its Divisions who reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective
judgmentafterduedeliberation.Italsofollows,consequently,thatachargeofviolationoftheAntiGraftandCorrupt
PracticesActonthegroundthatsuchacollectivedecisionisunjustcannotprosper.(emphasissupplied)

xxxx
Tosubjecttothethreatandordealofinvestigationandprosecution,ajudge,moresoamemberoftheSupreme
Court for official acts done by him in good faith and in regular exercise of official duty and judicial functions is to
subvertandunderminetheveryindependenceofthejudiciary,andsubordinatethejudiciarytotheexecutive.xxxx

ToallowlitigantstogobeyondtheCourtsresolutionandclaimthatthemembersactedwithdeliberatebadfaith
and rendered an unjust resolution in disregard or violation of the duty of their high office to act upon their own
independent consideration and judgment of the matter at hand would be to destroy the authenticity, integrity and
conclusivenessofsuchcollegiateactsandresolutionandtodisregardutterlythepresumptionofregularperformanceof
official duty. To allow such collateral attack would destroy the separation of powers and undermine the role of the
SupremeCourtasthefinalarbiterofalljusticiabledisputes.

Dissatisfiedlitigantsand/ortheircounselscannotwithoutviolatingtheseparationofpowersmandatedbythe
ConstitutionrelitigateinanotherforumthefinaljudgmentofthisCourtonlegalissuessubmittedbythemandtheir
adversariesforfinaldeterminationtoandbytheSupremeCourtandwhichfallwithinjudicialpowertodetermineand
adjudicateexclusivelyvestedbytheConstitutionintheSupremeCourtandinsuchinferiorcourtsasmaybeestablished
bylaw.
[7]
311Phil441,509(1995).
[8]
21Phil308,326(1912).
[9]
CONSTITUTION,ArticleXI,Section2.
[10]
CONSTITUTION,ArticleVIII,Section5(2).
[11]
Id.,Section5(5).
[12]
Reyesv.Montemayor,G.R.No.166516,September3,2009Uyv.Villanueva,G.R.No.157851,June29,2007,526SCRA73,83
84 Malison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147776, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 109. 117 and Buenaventura v. Republic, G.R. No.
166865,March2,2007,517SCRA271,282.
[13]
Part of the Criminal ComplaintAffidavit for Corrupt Practices, signed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Lozano
Endriano,receivedbytheOmbudsmanonSeptember8,2009,OmbudsmanRecords,pp.10891189,1090.
[14]
Section3.Corruptpracticesofpublicofficers.Inadditiontoactsoromissionsofpublicofficersalreadypenalizedbyexistinglaw,the
followingshallconstitutecorruptpracticesofanypublicofficerandareherebydeclaredtobeunlawful:
xxxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality,evidentbadfaithorgrossinexcusablenegligence.Thisprovisionshallapplytoofficersandemployeesofthe
officesorgovernmentcorporationschargedwiththegrantoflicensesorpermitsorotherconcessions.
xxxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 12/13
9/17/2015 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC
[15]
Velascov.Sandiganbayan,492Phil669,677(2005).
[16]
DelaChicav.Sandiganbayan,462Phil712,721(2003)andMendozaArcev.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,430Phil101,115(2002).
[17]
DelaChicav.Sandiganbayan,462Phil712,722(2003).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/10-1-13-SC.htm 13/13