FACTS:
Teresita Fabian was the major stockholder and
President of PROMAT Construction Development Corporation which was engaged in
the construction business.
Private respondent
Nestor Agustin was the District Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering
District. PROMAT participated in the bidding for government construction
projects, and private respondent, reportedly taking advantage of his official
position, inveigled petitioner into an amorous relationship.
Their affair lasted
for some time, in the course of which, private respondent gifted PROMAT with
public works contracts and interceded for it in problems concerning the same in
his office. When petitioner tried to terminate their relationship, private
respondent refused and resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of
employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats.
Petitioner filed an
administrative complaint against private respondent.
The ombudsman found
private respondent guilty of misconduct and meted out the penalty of suspension
without pay for 1 year.
After private
respondent moved for reconsideration, the Ombudsman discovered that the private
respondent’s new counsel had been his classmate and close associate, hence, he
inhibited himself.
The case was
transferred to respondent Deputy Ombudsman who exonerated private respondent
from the administrative charges. Petitioner appealed to the SC by certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 27 of RA 6770 which
provides for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of
the Ombudsman to the SC in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is
valid.
HELD:
The revised Rules of
Civil Procedure preclude appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the SC via a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Under the present Rule 45,
appeals may be brought through a petition for review on certiorari but only
from judgments and final orders of the courts enumerated in Sec. 1 thereof.
Appeals from
judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be
brought to the CA on a verified petition for review, under the requirements and
conditions in Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide for
a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.
Section 27 of RA 6770
cannot validly authorize an appeal to the SC from decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases.
It consequently
violates the proscription in Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution against a law
which increases the appellate jurisdiction of the SC.
No comments:
Post a Comment