Requirements as to certain laws: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court FABIAN vs DESIERTO G.R. No.

129742 September 16, 1998 FACTS Petitioner Teresita G. Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT Construction Development Corporation. Private respondent Nestor V. Agustin was the incumbent District Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering District. PROMAT participate in the bidding for government construction projects including those under FMED. Agustin and Fabian became involved in an amorous relationship that last for some time. During the course of the affair, Agustin gifted PROMAT with public works contracts and interceded in problems concerning the company in his office. When Fabian tried to terminate the relationship, Agustin resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of harassment, intimidation and threats. Fabian eventually file an administrative case against Agustin in a letter-complaint dated July 25, 1994. The Ombudsman found Agustin guilty of misconduct and meted out the penalty of suspension without pay for 1 year. When Agustin moved for reconsideration, the Ombudsman inhibited himself after he discovered that the respondents counsel had been his classmate and close associate. The case was transferred to the deputy ombudsman who exonerated Agustin from the administrative charges. Fabian filed an appeal to the Court, pointing out that Sec. 27 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1990) administrative disciplinary cases may be appealed to the Supreme Court ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive, decision or denial of motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. ISSUE Does Sec. 27 of RA 6770 violate Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution? HELD NO. Citing its ruling in First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., the Court says that Sec. 30, Art. VI was intended to prevent Congress in enacting legislation that would enlarge the Courts appellate jurisdiction. The provision in Sec. 30, Art. VI gave the Court a measure of control over cases place under its appellate jurisdiction. There was

no countervailing argument cogently presented that would justify the disregard the constitutional prohibition. Sec. 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to the Supreme Court from decisions of Ombudsman in disciplinary administrative cases. Appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in disciplinary administrative should be taken with the Court of Appeals (Rule 43 of Revised Rules on Civil Procedure). Section 27 of RA 6770 is declared invalid and of no further force and effect.