MANILA, Philippines – The administrative case filed by then Ombudsman Samuel Martires against seven Court of Appeals (CA) justices has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in connection with their reversal of a suspension order involving officials of an Antique town.
In a resolution dated Dec. 3, 2025 but was made public only on Friday, the high court's en banc dismissed for "lack of merit" and for "being judicial in nature" the complaint filed in March last year by Martires.
The complaint arose from the CA justices' decision overturning a ruling that had temporarily suspended Antique officials. Named in the complaint were Justices Louis Acosta, Rex Bernando Pascual, Mary Charlene Hernandez-Azura, Roberto Quiroz, Ferdinand Baylon, Marlene Gonzales-Sison, and Rafael Santos.
Sison and Santos have since retired.
The justices were accused of gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for lifting the suspension of Mayor Ernesto Tanjanlangit III of Tobias Fornier town and other Antique board members.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, Martires’ successor, raised the case last week while complaining about pending disciplinary cases against erring judiciary members, noting the absence of any public record showing whether the Supreme Court had resolved it.
But in its Sept. 3 statement, the Court said it concurred with Remulla regarding proceedings in all levels that must be accountable to the public but urged him to file a complaint and show evidence.
It said it acknowledged and affirmed the Ombudsman's assertion that judicial proceedings at every level must remain accountable to the Filipino people.
But for the high court, according to its spokesman Camille Sue Mae Ting, this was not merely a procedural preference—it was a constitutional imperative that lies at the very foundation of the democratic system of governance.
The Court does not take lightly any allegation of judicial bias, misconduct, or corruption. Such accusations strike at the heart of public confidence in the judiciary, and we treat them with the gravity they deserve, she said.
The high tribunal official said further that when formal complaints were properly filed, supported by competent evidence, and when the judges or justices concerned were afforded their fundamental right to be heard, “the Court does not hesitate to act.”
However, Ting said the Court could not—and would not—proceed upon broad, unsubstantiated accusations directed at an entire appellate court, particularly when allegations were based only on public statements made outside the established judicial processes.
