G.R. No. 154243 - Lastimoso vs. Asayo

In 1997, Delia BuAo filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Inspector General of the Philippine National Police (PNP) against P/Senior Inspector Jose J. Asayo for abuse of authority and harassment.
The complaint arose when Asayo allegedly obstructed police officers from arresting his brother, Lamberto Asayo, one of the suspects in the shooting of BuAo’s son.

The complaint was referred to the Inspector General for a pre-charge investigation.
When summoned, respondent failed to appear and instead filed a motion to dismiss the complaint by arguing that jurisdiction rested with the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB).

On September 23, 1998, the Inspector General submitted a report recommending the initiation of summary dismissal proceedings against Asayo.
The case was referred to the PNP Legal Service, and during the summary hearing:

The respondent was furnished with copies of the pre-charge investigation report and the affidavits of BuAo and her witnesses.
Asayo submitted his counter-affidavit and a rejoinder.
The hearing officer offered respondent the opportunity to cross-examine BuAo and her witnesses, which he waived in favor of resolving the case based solely on the pleadings.

On December 28, 1998, the hearing officer recommended dismissal from police service for grave misconduct.
On January 22, 1999, the PNP Chief, then Deputy Director General Roberto Lastimoso, rendered a decision dismissing respondent from service.

Respondent initially filed and then withdrew a motion for reconsideration, opting instead to petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
On August 27, 1999, the RTC granted respondent’s petition by annulling the PNP Chief’s decision and permanently enjoining its enforcement.
Petitioners (the Deputy Director General and other high-ranking PNP officials) subsequently appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).

On August 17, 2001, the CA promulgated a decision nullifying the RTC ruling and held that:

The PNP Chief had jurisdiction to try the civilian complaint filed against respondent; and
Respondent’s failure to exhaust the administrative appeal procedure (i.e. appealing to the National Appellate Board) was fatal to his cause.

Respondent moved for reconsideration, leading the CA on March 8, 2002, to issue a resolution reversing its prior decision by finding that:

The offense charged, punishable by dismissal, vested jurisdiction in the PLEB; and
Exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply because the issue was purely legal in nature.

The CA further denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in its resolution dated July 4, 2002.

Respondent contended that he did not exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing his petition, given that the issue involved a legal question exempt from the exhaustion requirement.
He further argued that the PNP Chief had the authority under Republic Act No. 6975 to hear and try the citizen’s complaint against him.

Whether the respondent was required to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to invoking the courts, given that the issue was of a purely legal nature.

Whether the PNP Chief has jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 6975 to act on a citizen’s complaint against a police officer, particularly in cases warranting dismissal.
The interpretation of the concurrent jurisdiction between the People’s Law Enforcement Board and the PNP Chief as provided in Sections 41, 42, and 45 of R.A. No. 6975.