De Vera v Pelayo

De Vera v Pelayo

GR No. 137354, 6 July 2000

Pardo, J.:

FACTS:

        On 28 Aug. 1996, petitioner Salvador De Vera filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the MTC from proceeding with a complaint for ejectment against him.  The case was re-raffled to Judge Benjamin Pelayo.

        On 9 June 198, MTC denied petitioner’s application for TRO.  1 Sept. 1998 when his motion for reconsideration was denied.

        On 23 Sept 1998, petitioner filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against Pelayo, accusing him of violating Arts. 206 and 207 and RA 3019.

        On 2 Oct 1998, Associate Graft Investigation Officer Erlinda Rojas recommended the petitioner’s complaint to be referred to the SC.

        On 13 Oct 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman referred the case to the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.

        On 6 Nov 1998, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the Evaluation Report. Petitioner criticizes the jurisprudence cited by the Ombudsman as erroneous and not applicable to his complaint. He insists that since his complaint involved a criminal charge against a judge, it was within the authority of the Ombudsman not the Supreme Court to resolve whether a crime was committed and the judge prosecuted therefor.

        On 4 Jan 1999, the Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

        W/N the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain criminal charges filed against a judge of RTC in connect with his handling of cases before the court.

HELD:

        No, the referral of the case to the Supreme Court is correct.  The Court agreed with the SolGen that the Ombudsman committed no grave abuse of discretion.  The Court ruled that that before a civil or criminal action against a judge for a violation of Art. 204 and 205 (knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order) can be entertained, there must first be "a final and authoritative judicial declaration" that the decision or order in question is indeed "unjust." The pronouncement may result from either:

• An action of certiorari or prohibition in a higher court impugning the validity of the judgment;
• An administrative proceeding in the Supreme Court against the judge precisely for promulgating an unjust judgment or order.

        The determination whether a judge has maliciously delayed the disposition of the case is also an exclusive judicial function.

        The Court reiterated that the prerogative to review a judicial order or decision -- whether final and executory or not -- and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or order belongs to the courts alone