You are on page 1of 1

FABIAN V DESIERTO HELD: NO

G.R. No. 129742


September 16, 1998 It is clear with Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution that the appellate jurisdiction of the
REGALADO, J. SC contemplated therein is to be exercised over final judgments and orders of lower
FACTS: courts, that is, the courts composing the integrated judicial system. It does not include
- Petitioner Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT the quasi-judicial bodies or agencies.
Construction Development Corporation whereas Respondent Agustin was
the incumbent District Engineer for FMED. PROMAT participated in the Sec. 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 consequently violates Sec. 30, Art. VI of the
bidding for government construction projects including those under FMED. Constitution, increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the court. No countervailing
- Respondent Agustin reportedly took advantage of his official position, argument was cogently given to justify as to why the statute (Ombudsman Act) should
charming the petitioner into an amorous relationship. Their affair lasted for be preferred over the Constitution.
some time, in the course of which the respondent gifted PROMAT with
projects and interceded for it concerning the same using his office. The Constitution intended to vest in the Supreme Court a measure of control but
strictly only over cases under its appellate jurisdiction. To act otherwise would be a total
- However, Fabian and Agustin stopped seeing eye to eye, leading to
disregard of the Constitutional provision and the spirit of legislation, enlarging the
unpleasant incidents between the two. When Fabian tried to put an end to
appellate jurisdiction of the SC, unnecessarily burdening the same.
their relationship, Agustin refused and resisted Fabian by employing acts of
harassment intimidation, and threats.
- Fabian then filed complaint seeking the dismissal of the respondent for
violation of Sec. 19, RA No 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Sec. 36 of
PD No. 807 (Civil Service Decree), charges referred to may be subsumed
under the category of oppression, misconduct, and disgraceful or immoral
conduct.
- Graft Investigator Benitez issued a resolution finding Agustin guilty of grave
misconduct, ordering his dismissal from the service. Herein Respondent
Ombudsman Desierto approved the aforesaid resolution. However, Agustin
moved for reconsideration, leading Ombudsman Desierto to discover that
the formers new counsel had been his classmate and close associate,
leaving him no choice but to inhibit himself from the case. The case was the
transferred to Respondent Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero who eventually
ruled in favour or Agustin.
- Fabian avers that the resolution initially issued while the respondents argue
that the Office of the Ombudsman is empowered by the Constitution to
promulgate its own rules or procedure. Fabian eventually elevated the case to
the Supreme Court, arguing that as per Sec. 27 of the Ombudsman Act of
1989, all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of
the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the SC through a petition
of certiorari.

ISSUE:

W/N the Supreme Court may take cognizance of administrative disciplinary cases,
orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman.