Title: FABIAN v.

DESIERTO
Date: September 16, 1998
G.R. No. 129742
Ponente: Regalado
Court Deciding: En Banc
Nature: Appellate Jusrisdiction of the Supreme court. Sec. 30 Article 6 of the Constitution.
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
Summary: The case is about the Teresita Fabian president of PROMAT who went into a
construction business with Nestor Agustin who was the incumbent District Engineer of
the First Metro Manila Engineering District. Their relationship became amorous which
developed unpleasant incidents. Fabian wants to terminate the relationship but Agustin
refused leading to harassment and intimidation. Fabian filed a misconduct case at the
Ombudsman which ruled in favor of Agustin. Fabian appealed the case to the Supreme
Court. She averred that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)
which held the said Section 27 was invalid according to Sec. 30 Article 6 of the
Constitution.

Facts: Teresita Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT
Construction Development Corporation (PROMAT) which was engaged in the
construction business with a certain Nestor Agustin. Agustin was the incumbent District
Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering District (FMED).

Misunderstanding and unpleasant incidents developed between Fabian and Agustin.

Fabian tried to terminate their relationship, but Agustin refused and resisted her attempts
to do so to the extent of employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats. She
eventually filed an administrative case against Agustin which eventually led an appeal to
the Ombudsman but the Ombudsman, Aniano Desierto, inhibited himself. But the case
was later referred to the deputy Ombudsman, Jesus Guerrero.

The deputy ruled in favor of Agustin and he said the decision is final and executory.
Fabian appealed the case to the Supreme Court. She averred that Section 27 of Republic
Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) pertinently provides that:

In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within
ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial
of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act is valid.

HELD: No. It is invalid for it illegally expanded the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. Section 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to the SC from decisions
of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently
violates the proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which
increases the Appellate jurisdiction of the SC. No countervailing argument has been
cogently presented to justify such disregard of the constitutional prohibition. That
constitutional provision was intended to give the SC a measure of control over cases
placed under its appellate jurisdiction. Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of
legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the SC.

Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution is clear when it states that the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC contemplated therein is to be exercised over final judgments and
orders of lower courts, that is, the courts composing the integrated judicial system. It
does not include the quasi-judicial bodies or agencies.

But what is the proper remedy?

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