G.R. No. 149539 - Cayago vs. Lina

Petitioners: SPO1 Nestor M. Cayago and PO3 Virgilio M. Ferrer, former police officers, were charged with kidnapping for ransom in Criminal Case No. Q-95-60144 filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94.
Summary dismissal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, leading to administrative hearings and subsequent dismissal orders.

On July 24, 1995, then Police Director General Recaredo A. Sarmiento II issued an order dismissing the petitioners from the police service on the basis of substantial evidence proving administrative culpability.
This order was affirmed by Special Order No. 2017, later corroborated by another dismissal order executed by Police Chief Superintendent Anselmo Sayson Avenido, Jr., effective September 19, 1995.

The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal order with the PNP Chief, arguing that the disciplinary body's findings were not supported by substantial evidence.
Instead of awaiting the result of their motion, the petitioners simultaneously filed an appeal with the National Appellate Board (NAB) under NAB SD Case No. 2-96-113.
On July 17, 1996, the NAB rendered a decision affirming the petitioners’ summary dismissal, holding that the appeal was without merit.

In February 1997, the RTC granted a Motion to Dismiss by Way of Demurrer in the criminal case for insufficiency of evidence, which canceled the bail bonds.
In August 1997, the PNP Chief issued a resolution partially granting the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, reducing their offense to less grave irregularities by imposing a 90-day suspension instead of dismissal, and restoring them to full duty.
This restoration was later nullified on October 14, 1997, by a NAPOLCOM memorandum and Special Order No. 2568, effectively re-establishing the dismissal.

The petitioners appealed the NAB decision to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), where Resolution No. 980479 (dated March 11, 1998) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the proper remedy lay with the DILG Secretary.
They then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on July 19, 1999, arguing that they never received a copy of the NAB decision, claiming due process violations and asserting that the PNP Chief had retained jurisdiction over their motion for reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition on the merits, noting that due process had been observed and that the petitioners’ administrative remedies had been properly exhausted.

The petitioners raised two primary issues in their petition for review under Rule 45:

Whether the NAB decision was void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction, given the simultaneous filing of a motion for reconsideration.
Whether they were denied due process because of deficiencies in the summary dismissal proceedings, particularly the issue of cross-examination.

The petitioners contended that the NAB decision had not attained finality since they were not furnished a copy, and that their appeal was motivated by necessity due to their loss of employment and livelihood.

Is the decision rendered by the National Appellate Board void ab initio on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction because petitioners had filed a motion for reconsideration with the PNP Chief concurrently with their appeal?
Did the simultaneous filing of contradictory remedies (a motion for reconsideration and an appeal to the NAB) prejudicially affect the proper exercise of jurisdiction?

Were the petitioners afforded the full due process required in administrative dismissal proceedings?
Specifically, did the absence of cross-examination of complainant Veloria and his witnesses during the summary dismissal proceedings constitute a denial of due process?