Case Digest (G.R. No. 218534)
Facts:
The case involves Police Director General Ricardo C. Marquez, in his capacity as the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), as the petitioner, versus Police Officer 2 Arnold P. Mayo, the respondent. The dispute arose from a disciplinary case where PO2 Mayo was dismissed from the police service for grave misconduct. On January 25, 2012, PO2 Mayo, together with other officers, attempted to dismantle a bomb at an iron workshop in Lower Bicutan, Taguig City, which eventually exploded, killing two police officers and one civilian and injuring others. Mayo was charged with grave misconduct for his role in this incident. Despite being served summons and notices, Mayo failed to file an answer during the administrative proceedings. On October 11, 2013, Police Director General Alan La Madrid Purisima, then Chief of the PNP, found Mayo guilty and imposed dismissal from service. Mayo filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on November 26, 2014. He then appealed to the
Case Digest (G.R. No. 218534)
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner: Police Director General Ricardo C. Marquez, Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP).
- Respondent: PO2 Arnold P. Mayo.
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the PNP under Rule 45 challenging the Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32 of Manila, which granted Mayo’s Petition for Injunction and declared Special Order No. 9999 (S.O. No. 9999) dismissing Mayo void.
- Factual Background
- A complaint for grave misconduct was filed by Annaliza F. Daguio against PO2 Mayo and others for an incident on January 25, 2012 involving an explosion at her iron workshop in Taguig City that killed several persons including PO1 Visaya and PO3 Jose Turalba.
- Respondent and co-officers attempted to dismantle a bomb but failed. They returned later, requested assistance from Cruzaldo Daguio to spot the bomb, which exploded, causing multiple deaths and injuries.
- PO2 Mayo was charged administrative grave misconduct based on the incident. He was notified but failed to file an answer or counter-affidavit.
- On October 11, 2013, then PNP Chief Alan La Madrid Purisima found him guilty of grave misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service.
- Mayo moved for reconsideration, asserting denial of due process and lack of jurisdiction by the Chief of the PNP, arguing the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) had exclusive disciplinary authority. The motion was denied on November 26, 2014.
- Mayo filed an appeal before the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board (NAB) on January 27, 2015.
- Despite the appeal, S.O. No. 9999 was issued on December 29, 2014, effecting dismissal retroactive to October 11, 2013. Mayo became aware in January 2015 upon denial of ID card renewal.
- Pursuant to the impending implementation, Mayo filed an injunction before the RTC, arguing that S.O. No. 9999 was void as the decision was not yet final and executory due to his pending appeal and pursuant to NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001 (NMC No. 2007-001).
- The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on February 9, 2015, upheld it on reconsideration, and on March 18, 2015, granted the injunction declaring S.O. No. 9999 void.
- The PNP filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC decision, which was denied on June 1, 2015.
- The PNP then filed the instant Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.
- Subsequent Developments
- The NAPOLCOM MC No. 2007-001 was repealed by MC No. 2016-002 but applied as it was the prevailing rule during the period.
- The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary dismissed Mayo’s appeal before the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board for procedural defect.
- Mayo’s Motion for Reconsideration before the DILG was denied.
- S.O. No. 2158 was later issued cancelling S.O. No. 9999 based on the injunction order of the RTC.
Issues:
- Whether the dismissal penalty imposed by the Chief of the PNP on a police officer is immediately executory despite a seasonably filed appeal with the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board.
- Whether the issuance of S.O. No. 9999 dismissing PO2 Mayo despite his pending appeal was proper and valid.
- Whether the injunction issued by the RTC enjoining the implementation of the dismissal order was correct.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)