Case Digest (G.R. No. 127625)
Facts:
PO1 Virgilio Flora Cara v. Court of Appeals (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 127625, May 31, 2000, First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner PO1 Virgilio Flora Cara (petitioner) was involved in a roadside confrontation on March 7, 1993, after a vehicle owned and driven by respondent Teodoro B. Chua reportedly sideswiped petitioner’s jeep at the intersection of Anonas Street and Kamias Road, Quezon City. A physical altercation ensued in which petitioner and his companion, Abraham Rosagaran, exchanged blows with respondent Chua; policemen from the Anonas Sub-station later pacified the parties.
Respondent Chua filed an administrative complaint against petitioner with the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), District III, Quezon City. The PLEB subpoenaed petitioner and conducted hearings; on July 19, 1994 it found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from the Philippine National Police (PNP).
Petitioner appealed to the Regional Appellate Board, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). On May 22, 1995 the Board affirmed the PLEB’s findings and dismissed the appeal; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated August 15, 1995. Petitioner then sought review with the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, Rafael M. Alunan III, by filing a petition on January 18, 1996, but the NAPOLCOM on February 2, 1996 ruled that the decision was not appealable to the Secretary.
On April 2, 1996 petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 40269) seeking to set aside the NAPOLCOM’s dismissal order and to compel reinstatement to the PNP. The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision dismissing the petition on May 10, 1996. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari; the petition was filed Januar...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was certiorari and mandamus a proper remedy to review the NAPOLCOM’s factual and credibility determinations in petitioner’s administrative dismissal?
- Was petitioner’s recourse to the Court of Appeals timely, or must the petition be dismissed as f...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)