Case Digest (G.R. No. 139658)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 139658)
Facts:
PO3 William M. Mendoza v. National Police Commission, Regional Appellate Board and the District Director, Southern Police District, Philippine National Police, G.R. No. 139658, June 21, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner PO3 William M. Mendoza, together with PO2 Angelita Ramos, were charged in an affidavit‑complaint filed by Teodoro V. Conti for illegal arrest, illegal detention, physical injuries and robbery arising from an incident at the HI‑PITCH Disco Club on or about 2:30 a.m., 21 February 1993. The complaint alleged that Mendoza and Ramos forcibly arrested Conti, brought him to the District Special Operations Unit (DSOU), forced him to remove and swallow a gold necklace, struck and inserted a gun barrel into his mouth, mauled him inflicting facial injuries, detained him, and took P970.00 plus three pieces of jewelry.
Following a summary administrative proceeding, PNP Regional Director Oscar T. Aquino rendered a decision dated April 15, 1993 finding Mendoza and Ramos guilty and ordering their dismissal. They appealed to the Regional Appellate Board (RAB) of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), National Capital Region; the RAB affirmed the Regional Director’s decision in a Decision dated August 23, 1993. Mendoza moved for reconsideration alleging nonparticipation in a clarificatory hearing; the RAB denied the motion in a Resolution dated December 17, 1993.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Makati City, docketed Special Civil Case No. 96‑074, seeking annulment of the RAB Decision and Resolution on due process grounds. The RAB, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved to dismiss in the RTC on the ground that Mendoza failed to exhaust administrative remedies—specifically, he had not appealed to the DILG Secretary and, ultimately, to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as provided under the statutory appeal scheme.
In an Order dated April 21, 1997, the RTC denied the RAB’s motion to dismiss, invoking the exception to exhaustion where acts were allegedly performed without or in excess of jurisdiction constituting utter disregard of due process. The RAB’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied on September 26, 1997. The RAB, aided by the OSG, then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 46387), which, in a Decision dated August 12, 1999 (penned by Justice Artemon D. Luna, concurred in by Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Candido V. Rivera), granted the petition and dismissed Special Civil Action No. 96‑074. Mendoza did not file a comment in the Court of Appeals proceeding nor did he move for reconsideration of the appellate decision.
Mendoza sought relief in this Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), challenging the Court of Appeals’ dismissal on the ground of his alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies and claiming denial of due process in the administrative proceedings.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing Special Civil Action No. 96‑074 on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies?
- Could petitioner validly bypass administrative remedies on the ground of denial of due process by the PNP Regional Director and the RAB (i.e., does the exception to exhaustion apply)?
- Did petitioner’s failure to file a comment in the Court of Appeals and his failure to move for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ decision affect his entitlement to relief?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)