Section 6

Judge Caoibes, Jr. v. Ombudsman

FACTS: The present case involves 2 members of Judiciary who were
entangled in a fight within court premises over a piece of office
furniture
Issue: WON an administrative case based on the act subject of the
complaint before an Ombudsman is already pending with the Court
should still be referred to the Supreme Court.
Held: YES. The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself
whether a complaint against a judge or court employee involves an
administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to refer to the
Supreme Court the determination as to whether an administrative
aspect is involved in all cases against judges and court personnel filed
before it.
Ratio:
Under Sec. 6 of Art. VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court
which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all
courts and personnel.
The Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed
of it. He should also give DUE RESPECT for and RECOGNITION of the
administrative authority of the Court.
The Ombudsman cannot dictate nor bind the Court to its findings
because to do this is to deprive the Court of its administrative
prerogative and arrogate unto itself a power not constitutionally
sanctioned.
From the Presiding Justice of CA down to the lowest MTC court clerk,
it is only the SC that can oversee their compliance with all laws and
take proper administrative action against them if they commit any
violation.
No other branch of govt may intrude into this powers
without running afoul the doctrine of separation of powers.