A complaint for ejectment was filed (to the MTC) against De Vera.

He then filed a special civil

action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (to the RTC) to restrain the MTC from
proceeding against his case.

(the Judge in the case inhibited himself, na re-raffle kay respondent kaya siya respondent HAHA)

RTC; SC – denied

Petitioner then filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint against Judge Pelayo for
allegedly violating Articles 206 and 207 of the RPC and RA 3019

Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust
interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period
and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance
and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.

Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice.

REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019: ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Associate Graft Investigation Officer – submitted an evaluation: closed and terminated

the complaint; referred to Ombudsman

Ombudsman – referred the case to Court Administrator, Supreme Court; denied MR

Petitioner contends that since his complaint involved a criminal charge against a judge, it was
within the authority of the Ombudsman and not the Supreme Court to resolve the issue

ISSUE: whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain criminal charges filed
against a judge of the regional trial court in connection with his handling of cases before the
court.

HELD: NO

The referral of the case to the Supreme Court is correct. The Court applied the the ruling in In
Re: Joaquin Borromeo, wherein it laid down the rule, that before a civil or criminal action against
a judge can be entertained, there must first be "a final and authoritative judicial
declaration" that the decision or order in question is indeed "unjust." The
pronouncement may result from either:

(a) an action of certiorari or prohibition in a higher court impugning the validity of the
judgment; or

(b) an administrative proceeding in the Supreme Court against the judge precisely for
promulgating an unjust judgment or order.

That no other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution or investigation
service of any other branch, not any functionary thereof, has competence to review a
judicial order or decision -- whether final and executory or not -- and pronounce it erroneous
so as to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment
or order. That prerogative belongs to the courts alone.