Case Digest (G.R. No. 139368)
Facts:
In Robin M. Cano v. The Chief, Philippine National Police, Edgar C. Galvante, and the Department of Interior and Local Government, G.R. No. 139368, November 21, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Robin M. Cano, then Police Chief Inspector of the Calauan Police Station, was charged with grave misconduct for an allegedly bungled investigation into the Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez rape-slay case. The Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) found him guilty and ordered his summary dismissal in a decision dated July 12, 1995. Cano appealed to the National Appellate Board of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
On May 15, 1997, the NAPOLCOM Appellate Board reversed the PNP Chief’s decision and modified the penalty to suspension for three months for Simple Misconduct, concluding the suspension previously imposed (effective August 7, 1995) was deemed served; Cano was restored to full duty effective May 15, 1997 and reinstated per PNP Special Order No. 1341. Cano then sought payment of alleged back salaries and allowances for the period August 7, 1995 to May 15, 1997, computed by the PNP Regional Police Comptrollership and Finance Division at P301,018.00. That claim was denied by Police Director Edgar C. Galvante of the PNP Directorate for Personnel and Records Management, based on an opinion of the PNP Legal Service; a request for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Cano filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 224, on December 23, 1998 for recovery of the back pay. The RTC, in an order dated May 17, 1999, dismissed the complaint on the ground that Cano failed to show a clear legal right to the back pay, failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the suit was effectively one against the government which cannot be sued without consent. Cano’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 15, 1999. He then filed the instant petition fo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Did the petition properly present only questions of law cognizable under a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45?
- Procedural: Did petitioner fail to observe the hierarchy of courts by invoking this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction instead of taking an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41, Section 2?
- Substantive: Is petitioner entitled to back salaries and allowances for the period August 7, 1995 to May 15, 1997 as a consequence of the NAPOLCOM Appellate Boar...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)