ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FIDEL C.

SALO

TERESITA G. FABIAN vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, et. al.

G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, REGALADO, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
provided in the Constitution without its advice and consent. The Court is not
precluded from inquiring into its own jurisdiction, in which case it may be raised at
any time or on the court’s own motion, or compel it to enter a judgment that it lacks
jurisdiction to enter. The Court ex mero motu may take cognizance of lack of
jurisdiction at any point in the case where that fact is developed. The court has a
clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction in any proceeding.

FACTS
Petitioner had an amorous relationship with respondent Engr. Nestor V. Agustin,
Asst. Regional Director, Region IV-A of the Department of Public Works and
Highways. When the former tried to end their relationship, the latter refused and
resorted to harassment, intimidation and threats, prompting petitioner to file an
administrative case in the Office of the Ombudsman. Respondent was initially found
guilty of misconduct but was later exonerated by Deputy Ombudsman Jesus F.
Guerrero in the Joint Order of June 18, 1997. On appeal, petitioner argues that Sec. 7,
Rule III of Administrative Order (AO) No. 07 (Rules of Procedures of the Office of the
Ombudsman), which provides that “when a respondent is absolved of the charges in
an administrative proceeding, the decision of the Ombudsman is final and
unappealable”, has no authority under the law in so far as it restricts the power of
the Supreme Court provided in Sec. 27 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) that
“all administrative cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for
certiorari”. She thus found it necessary to “take an alternative recourse under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, because of the doubt it creates on the availability of appeal
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court”.

ISSUE
Whether the direct appeal in administrative cases from the Office of the
Ombudsman to the Supreme Court is valid.

RULING
No. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, together with Section 7, Rule III of AO No.
07 and any other provision of law insofar as they provide for appeals in
administrative disciplinary cases directly from the Office of the Ombudsman to the
Supreme Court are invalid. Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides
that “no law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and consent“. There is no
showing that even up to its enactment, Republic Act No. 6770 was ever referred to
the Court for its advice and consent. The constitutional prohibition was intended to
give the Court a measure of control over cases placed under its appelate jurisdiction.
Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging the appellate
jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court.

None of the parties raised a constitutional challenge to Sec. 27 of RA 6770. While

courts will not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions which are not raised in
the pleadings, it is not precluded from inquiring into its own jurisdiction, in which
case it may be raised at any time or on the court’s own motion, or compel it to enter
a judgment that it lacks jurisdiction to enter. The Court ex mero motu may take
cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case where that fact is
developed. The court has a clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction
in any proceeding.