JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS, EVELYN K. OBIDO AND WILBERTO B.

CARRIEDO, petitioners,
vs. THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO and BENJAMIN VILLARANTE, JR.,
respondents.

The issue in this case is whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has
jurisdiction to initiate an investigation into the alleged undue delay in the
disposition of the case as said charge relates to a judges performance of her
official duties.

The law provides that the administrative supervision over all courts and
court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the
lowest municipal trial court clerk is exclusively vests in the Supreme Court . By
virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and
court personnels compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative
action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of
government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of
separation of powers.

In this case the complaint against petitioner-judge before the Office of the
Ombudsman is basically administrative in nature. In essence, petitioner-judge is
being charged with having violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.It must be borne in mind that the resolution of the
administrative charge of unduly delaying the disposition of the said criminal case
involves the determination of whether, in resolving the alarms and scandals case,
petitioner-judge acted in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Rules of
Court and in the Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the ideals embodied in
the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such is clearly an administrative matter.
Unquestionably, the Supreme Court is mandated under Section 6, Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution to assume administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.

Therefore, the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to initiate an

investigation into the alleged undue delay in the disposition of the case. The
petition is GRANTED.
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, represented by the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondent.

The issue in this case is wether or not the investigation conducted by the
Office of the Ombudsman violated due process, inasmuch as it commenced its
investigation by issuing the subpoena duces tecum without first furnishing
petitioner with a summary of the complaint and requiring it to submit a written
answer.

The law provides that the Office of the Ombudsman shall receive complaints
from any source in whatever form concerning an official act or omission. It shall
act on the complaint immediately and if it finds the same entirely baseless, it
shall dismiss the same and inform the complainant of such dismissal citing the
reasons therefore. If it finds a reasonable, ground to investigate further, it
shall first furnish the respondent public officer or employee with a summary of the
complaint and require him to submit a written answer within seventy-two hours from
receipt hereof. If the answer is found satisfactory, it shall dismiss the case.

In this case, the BIR officials concerned were never furnished by the
respondent with a summary of the complaint and were not given the opportunity to
submit their counter-affidavits and controverting evidence. Instead, they were
summarily ordered to appear before the Ombudsman and to produce the case dockets of
the tax refunds granted to Limtuaco and La Tondea. They are aggrieved in that, from
the point of view of the respondent, they were already deemed probably guilty of
granting anomalous tax refunds. Plainly, respondent Office of the Ombudsman failed
to afford petitioner with the basics of due process in conducting its investigation.

Therefore, the procedure taken by the respondent did not comply with the
safeguards enumerated in Sec. 26, (2) of RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989. The
respondent Office of the Ombudsman is prohibited and ordered to desist from
proceeding