Case Digest (G.R. No. 218534)
Facts:
Police Director General Ricardo C. Marquez, in his capacity as the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) (in lieu of former PNP Officer-in-Charge, Police Deputy Director General Leonardo A. Espina), Petitioner, vs. PO2 Arnold P. Mayo, Respondent, G.R. No. 218534, September 17, 2018, the Supreme Court First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.The controversy began with a complaint filed by Annaliza F. Daguio before the Office of the Chief, PNP, docketed as administrative case NHQ-AC-363-011413 (DIDM-ADM-13-04), charging PO2 Arnold P. Mayo and several other police officers with grave misconduct arising from a January 25, 2012 explosion at an iron workshop in Lower Bicutan, Taguig City that killed civilians and some police officers and injured others. The administrative record shows that respondent failed to file an answer despite being served with summons and notices of pre-hearing conference.
On October 11, 2013, Police Director General Alan La Madrid Purisima, then Chief of the PNP, found PO2 Mayo guilty of grave misconduct and imposed dismissal from the service, aggravated by his official position with the Explosive Ordnance Disposal of the SAF. PO2 Mayo filed a motion for reconsideration (Jan. 2, 2014), which was denied by resolution on November 26, 2014. Thereafter, the PNP issued Special Order (S.O.) No. 9999 dated December 29, 2014, dismissing PO2 Mayo effective October 11, 2013; the respondent alleged he first learned of the SO on January 30, 2015 when his PNP ID renewal was refused.
PO2 Mayo appealed to the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board (NAB) on January 27, 2015, and, before the NAB resolved the appeal, filed a petition for injunction with a prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, City of Manila, docketed Civil Case No. 15-132998. The RTC granted a TRO on February 9, 2015, denied the PNP’s motion for reconsideration of the TRO on March 3, 2015, and on March 18, 2015 issued a decision granting the petition for injunction and declaring S.O. No. 9999 void on the ground that the Chief PNP’s decision was not yet final and executory once an appeal before the NAB had been timely filed. The PNP’s motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision was denied on June 1, 2015.
The PNP sought review in this Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the RTC’s declaration that S.O. No. 9999 was void and asking that the injunction be lifted. The parties and the lower courts treated Section 45 of R.A. No. 6975 and NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001 (NMC No. 2007-001)...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is S.O. No. 9999, which implements the Chief of the PNP’s decision dismissing PO2 Arnold P. Mayo, immediately executory despite a seasonably filed appeal with the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board?
- Does the subsequent dismissal of PO2 Mayo’s administrative appeal by the Secretary of the DILG render the dismissal executory despite an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)