<Appellate

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court> <Fabian v. Desierto> <Hinanay>

<G.R No. 129742.> <September 16, 1998> <Regalado, J.>
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER
Appellate Jurisdiction an aggrieved party may appeal or file for certiorari, question the judgments and decrees of a lower
court before the Supreme Court, which may review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm the same. The appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court is irreducible and may not be withdrawn by the Congress. The appeals allowed are from the final
judgements and decrees only of lower courts or judicial tribunals. Administrative Decisions are not included.
RECIT-READY / SUMMARY

Petitioner has appealed to the court by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the Joint Order issued by public
respondents which granted the motion for reconsideration of and absolved private respondents from administrative
chargers for grave misconduct committed as Assistant Regional Director, Region IV-A, Department of Public Works and
Highways. The Court ruled that Sec 27 of RA 6770 is invalid because it expands the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court which is against Sec 30, Art VI of the Constitution.

FACTS
Teresita Fabian (petitioner) was the major stockholder president of PROMAT Construction Development
Corporation which was engaged in the construction business.
Nestor Agustin (private respondent) was the incumbent District Engineering District (FMED) when he allegedly
committed the offenses for which he was administratively charged in the Office of the Ombudsman.
PROMAT participated in the bidding for government construction project including those under FMED.
Agustin reportedly took advantage of official position by having an amorous relationship with petitioner. Agustin
gifted PROMAT with public works contracts.
Petitioner tried to terminate their relationship later which private respondent refused and resisted her attempts to
do so to the extent of employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats. This led to petitioner to file an
administrative charge against private respondent.
The complaint sought the dismissal of private respondent for violation of Sec. 19, RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act pf
1989) and Sec. 36 of PD. 807 (Civil Service Degree) with a prayer for his preventive suspension.
Jan 31, 1996: Graft Investigator Eduardo R. Benitez issued a resolution finding private respondents guilty of grave
misconduct and ordering his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits under the law. His resolution
was approved by Director Napoleon Baldrias and Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera of their office.
Feb 26, 1996: Ombudsman approved the resolution with modifications, finding private respondent guilty of
misconduct and meting out the penalty of suspension without pay for one year. Private respondent moved for
reconsideration and the Ombudsman discovered that private respondents counsel had been his classmate and
close associate. Hence, he inhibited himself.
The case was transferred to respondent Deputy Ombudsman Jesus Guerrero, who challenged the Joint Order of
June 18, 1997 and set aside the Feb 26. 1997 Order of respondent Ombudsman and exonerated private
respondents
ISSUES / RATIO ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED
WON Sec 27 RA 6770 is valid
Sec 27 RA 6770
Sec 7 Rule III of Administrative Order No 7
Art XI, 1987 Constitution
Sec 30 Art VI, 1987 Constitution



HELD

No. It is invalid because it illegally expands the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Sec 27 RA 6770 cannot validly
authorize an appeal to the Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It
violates the proscription in Sec 30 Art VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.

Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agenciescan be brought to the Court of Appeals on a verified
petition for review under the requirements of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court which was formulated and adopted to provide
for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.


 <Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court> <Fabian v. Desierto> <Hinanay>
<G.R No. 129742.> <September 16, 1998> <Regalado, J.>
OPINION (CONCURRING) OPINION (DISSENTING)