Digest Author: Cecille Mangaser

Rodolfo Garcia v. Primo Miro

GR Number 167409
Petition: Petition for prohibition with prayer for issuance of preliminary injunction
Petitioner: Rodolfo Garcia (Retired Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge- Calatrava-Toboso,
Negros Occidental)
Respondent: Hon. Primo Miro (Ombudsman-Visayas, Cebu City); Daniel Villaflor (Provincial
Prosecutor- Bacolod), Hon. Franklin Cobbol (Acting Presiding Judge-MCTC Calatrava-Toboso,
Negros Occidental) and Julieta Ortega
Ponente: Peralta, J.
Date: March 20, 2009
Facts:
Julieta Ortega filed a letter complaint before the Ombudsman-Visayas (Primo Miro) charging the
petitioner with the crime of murder and the administrative offense of grave misconduct and
abuse of authority. Complaint arose from the death of Ortegas husband as a result of a vehicular
mishap between a car driven by the petitioner and the motorcycle driven by the deceased. It was
treated as 2 separate criminal and administrative complaints. In an evaluation report, Graft
Investigation Officer (GIO) Yap found the letter to be sufficient in form and substance,
concluding that the offense charged is not related to the functions of the petitioner as a judge and
can be the subject of preliminary investigation. Provincial prosecutor manifested that the OCA
and Office of the Ombudsman would be more appropriate to conduct investigation. GIO Yap
found that there exists probable cause for the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide. Information for the crime was filed against the petitioner but petitioner filed a motion
to quash. MCTC issued an order granting the motion. Respondents filed a motion for
reconsideration which was granted. Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration which was
denied. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition was correctly filed directly before the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
No. The present petition was directly filed in the Supreme Court in utter disregard of the rule on
the hierarchy of courts, warranting outright dismissal. In the case of Vergara, Sr. v. Suelto, the
court stressed that the Supreme Court is the court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it. Supervision over all inferior courts and
court personnel is vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court. However, the prerogative
extends to administrative supervision. The Ombudsman cannot encroach upon the Courts to
oversee judges and court personnel and take the proper administrative action against them
if they commit any violation of the laws. The criminal case filed against the petitioner is not
related to the performance of his duties as a judge. The administrative aspect of the case was
endorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator and the Ombudsman only proceeded with the
criminal aspect of the case.
Dispositive:

Digest Author: Cecille Mangaser

Petition was denied. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court was ordered to proceed with the trial of
the criminal case.