Title
Acuzar vs. Jorolan
Case
G.R. No. 177878
Decision Date
Apr 7, 2010
SPO1 Acuzar faced administrative and criminal charges for alleged misconduct with a minor. PLEB dismissed him; RTC annulled, CA reversed. SC upheld CA, citing proper remedy was appeal, not certiorari, and due process was observed.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 177878)

Facts:

Administrative and Criminal Charges: On May 2, 2000, respondent Aproniano Jorolan filed Administrative Case No. 2000-01 before the People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of New Corella, Davao del Norte, charging petitioner SPO1 Leonito Acuzar with Grave Misconduct for allegedly having an illicit relationship with Jorolan's minor daughter. On May 11, 2000, Jorolan also filed a criminal case against Acuzar before the Municipal Trial Court for Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (Child Abuse Act).

Petitioner’s Defense: On May 15, 2000, Acuzar filed a Counter-Affidavit before the PLEB, denying the allegations. He attached the affidavit of Jorolan's daughter, Rigma A. Jorolan, who denied any relationship with Acuzar or any inappropriate behavior.

Motion to Suspend Proceedings: On July 24, 2000, Acuzar filed a motion to suspend the PLEB proceedings pending resolution of the criminal case. The PLEB denied the motion, stating it lacked merit, and proceeded with the hearing.

PLEB Decision: On August 17, 2000, the PLEB found Acuzar guilty of Grave Misconduct (Child Abuse) and ordered his dismissal from service.

Petition Before the RTC: Acuzar filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City, alleging that the PLEB decision was issued without due process and that the PLEB lacked jurisdiction to proceed without a prior conviction in the criminal case.

RTC Ruling: On October 15, 2002, the RTC annulled the PLEB decision, finding that Acuzar was denied due process as he was not given an opportunity to present his evidence.

CA Ruling: On March 23, 2007, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, holding that Acuzar should have appealed the PLEB decision to the Regional Appellate Board instead of filing a petition for certiorari. The CA also ruled that Acuzar was afforded due process.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA erred in ruling that certiorari was not a proper remedy to assail the PLEB decision since appeal was available.
  2. Whether the CA erred in ruling that Acuzar was accorded due process before the PLEB.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.