Case Digest (G.R. No. 119645)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 119645)
Facts:
SPO3 Noel Cabada and SPO3 Rodolfo G. De Guzman v. Hon. Rafael M. Alunan III, Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government & Chairman, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), G.R. No. 119645, August 22, 1996, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petitioners, SPO3 Noel Cabada and SPO3 Rodolfo G. De Guzman, were administratively charged with Grave Misconduct, Arbitrary Detention and Dishonesty after a complaint by private respondent Mario Valdez was referred by the Commission on Human Rights to the Philippine National Police Eighth Regional Command (PNP‑RECOM 8). Following investigation, the Regional Director of PNP‑RECOM 8 found the petitioners guilty in a decision dated 7 April 1994 and issued Special Order No. 174, dated 23 April 1994, effecting dismissal from the service; the petitioners contend they received the special order on 26 April 1994 but obtained a copy of the Regional Director’s decision only on 13 June 1994.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration with the Regional Director which they allege was not acted upon and asked that it be treated as an appeal to the Regional Appellate Board, Eighth Regional Command (RAB 8). RAB 8 rendered a decision on 15 August 1994 affirming the Regional Director; it denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by resolution dated 25 October 1994 (petitioners received the resolution on 26 January 1995). The petitioners then filed an “Appeal” and a “Petition for Review” addressed to the Secretary of the DILG as Chairman/Presiding Officer of NAPOLCOM (dated 4–5 February 1995).
On 24 March 1995 the NAPOLCOM, through Commissioner Alexis Canonizado, issued a letter denying due course to those submissions for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the decision and resolution of RAB 8 had become final and executory and citing NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circulars (Sections 23, Rule IV of MC No. 91‑002 and Section 5, Rule III of MC No. 91‑006) that purportedly rendered RAB decisions final if not acted upon within prescribed periods. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment arguing the petition was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that the petitioners should have appealed to the Civil Service Commission pursuant to Section 47, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292) as applied by Section 91 of the DILG Act of 1990 (R.A. No. 6975).
Petitioners brought a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to annul NAPOLCOM’s 24 March 1995 letter denying due course. The Court below records were considered by the Supreme Court Third Division, which granted the petition and directed relief as described in the disposition.
Issues:
- Did the NAPOLCOM commit grave abuse of discretion in denying due course, for lack of jurisdiction, the petitioners’ appeal and petition for review from the decision and resolution of RAB 8?
- Was the special civil action prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)