The case is a petition for certiorari and mandamus1 [Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.] assailing the Evaluation Report of the Evaluation and Investigation Office, Office of the Ombudsman, dated October 2, 1998 referring petitioner’s complaint to the Supreme Court and its Memorandum, dated January 4, 1999,2 [In CPL No. 98 - 2911.] denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

We state the relevant facts.

Petitioner is not a member of the bar. Possessing some awareness of legal principles and procedures, he represents himself in this petition.

On August 28, 1996, petitioner instituted with the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the municipal trial court from proceeding with a complaint for ejectment against petitioner.3 [In SCA No. 1151, Sps. De Vera v. Hon. Quijano, Presiding Judge MTC Taguig, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin MTC, Branch 74 from proceeding with a complaint for ejectment against them.] When the Judge originally assigned to the case inhibited himself, the case was re-raffled to respondent Judge Benjamin V. Pelayo.4 [Branch 168, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City. He retired on March 31, 1999.]

On July 9, 1998, the trial court denied petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. The court denied the same on September 1, 1998.5 [Rollo, p. 98.]

On September 23, 1998, petitioner filed with the Office of the Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint6 [Rollo, pp. 26-33.] against Judge Pelayo, accusing him of violating Articles 2067 [Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order.] and 2078 [Malicious delay in the administration of justice.] of the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 3019.9 [Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.]

On October 2, 1998, Associate Graft Investigation Officer, Erlinda S. Rojas submitted an Evaluation Report recommending referral of petitioners’ complaint to the Supreme Court. Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Apotadera approved the recommendation.10 [Rollo, pp. 51-52.] We quote the decretal portion of the report:11 [Rollo, p. 52.]

On October 13, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman referred the case to the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.12 [Rollo, p. 53.]

On November 6, 1998, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the Evaluation Report.

On January 4, 1999, the Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration.13 [Roland B. Galvan, Assistant Graft Investigative Officer I submitted a memorandum ("Comment and Recommendation") recommending denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Angel C. Mayoralgo, Jr., Director of the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman recommended approval. The recommendation was approved by Abelardo L. Aportadera, Assistant Ombudsman, EIO (Rollo, pp. 61-62)]

Hence, this petition.14 [Petition filed on February 17, 1999, Rollo, pp. 3-25. On January 24, 2000, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 108-109)]

The issue is 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.

Petitioner criticizes the jurisprudence15 [Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464 (1993) and Dolalas v. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, 265 SCRA 818 (1996)] cited by the Office of the Ombudsman as erroneous and not applicable to his complaint. He insists that since his complaint involved a criminal charge against a judge, it was within the authority of the Ombudsman not the Supreme Court to resolve whether a crime was committed and the judge prosecuted therefor.

The petition can not succeed.

We find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman did not exercise his power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility.16 [Arsenio P. Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000; Director Guillermo Domondon v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 129904, March 16, 2000.] There was no evasion of positive duty. Neither was there a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law.17 Barangay Blue Ridge "A" of Quezon City v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 11854, November 24, 1999.]

We agree with the Solicitor General that the Ombudsman committed no grave abuse of discretion warranting the writs prayed for.18 [Memorandum filed by Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio L. Villamor and Solicitor Derek R. Puertollano (Rollo, pp. 140-143.)] The issues have been settled in the case of In Re: Joaquin Borromeo.19 [241 SCRA 408, 460 (1995)] There, we laid down the rule that before a civil or criminal action against a judge for a violation of Art. 204 and 205 (knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order) 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:20 [Ibid, at 464.]

Likewise, the determination of whether a judge has maliciously delayed the disposition of the case is also an exclusive judicial function.21 [In Re: Borromeo, supra, at 461.]

This having been said, we find that the Ombudsman acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence when he referred the cases against Judge Pelayo to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

WHEREFORE, there being no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the respondent, we DISMISS the petition and AFFIRM the Evaluation Report of the Evaluation and Investigation Office, Office of the Ombudsman dated October 2, 1998 and its memorandum, dated January 4, 1999, in toto.

No costs.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.