Fabian vs, desierto

FACTS:
PROMAT participated in a government bidding including that of FMED. Also, private respondent
entered into an amorous relationship with the petitioner. Later on, misunderstanding and unpleasant
incidents developed between the parties when petitioner tried to terminate their agreement, causing the
petitioner to file an administrative case against him. Soon, Graft Investigator Eduardo Benitez issued a
resolution finding private respondents guilty of grave misconduct. The case was then elevated into an
appeal before the Ombudsman who inhibited himself and transferred the case to the Deputy Ombudsman
which then rested in favour of Agustin and the Order exonerated the private respondents from
administrative charges. Fabian then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman may be appealed to the supreme court.

RULING:
NO. Section 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly authorize on appeal to this Court. From decisions of the
Office of the Ombudsman on administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the prescription
in Sec. 30, article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of this
court. No countervailing argument has been cogently presented to justify such disregard of the
constitutional prohibition which was intended to give this court a measure of control over cases placed
under its appellate jurisdiction. Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its
appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily hinder the court.