G.R. No. 129914 - NAPOLCOM vs. Bernabe

On March 03, 1993, a newspaper article reported that Police Chief Inspector Leonardo W. Bernabe was allegedly heading a syndicate involved in the encashment of treasury warrants belonging to PC soldiers, policemen, firemen, and jail personnel who were deceased, AWOL, suspended, or separated from service.
The same day, President Fidel V. Ramos directed the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute Bernabe.
Acting on this directive, the Secretary referred the matter to the PNP Director General, who in turn ordered the Criminal Investigation Service Command to launch an investigation.

Also on March 03, 1993, Bernabe was informed of the Batuigas article, which included a presidential marginal note. Superintendent Romeo Acop ordered him to explain the allegations through an affidavit.
On March 05, 1993, Bernabe submitted his affidavit providing a point-by-point answer to the charges, stating that most of the cases against him had either been dismissed by the Ombudsman or were pending resolution—with the exception of one case before the Sandiganbayan concerning the encashment of treasury warrants.

On March 18, 1993, CICS Director Angel Quizon submitted a memorandum to the Chief of the PNP. This document provided a background on a January 1989 incident where Bernabe, then a PC captain, along with other personnel of the 16th Finance Service Unit, was charged with several counts of estafa through the falsification of documents in connection with treasury warrants.
The memorandum detailed that these cases involved the fraudulent encashment of a significant number of treasury warrants that were supposed to have been cancelled. It also noted that while most cases were pending resolution with the Ombudsman, one case involving the encashment of seven treasury warrants was still pending before the Sandiganbayan.

On April 23, 1993, following the issuance of a notice of complaint/charge, Bernabe was suspended from police service for a period of ninety (90) days by command of the Police Deputy Director General.
Subsequent to the suspension, Bernabe filed a motion for a bill of particulars on March 31, 1993. The CICS maintained that the allegations in the complaint were adequate for him to file an intelligent answer.

On April 26, 1993, the Summary Dismissal Hearing Officer issued a resolution recommending Bernabe’s dismissal from the PNP.
On July 13, 1993, the PNP Inspector General concurred with the recommendation, and on July 20, 1993, the Chief of the PNP ordered Bernabe's dismissal.

The dismissal was based on various facts including his alleged leadership of the payroll syndicate, involvement in the errant encashment of treasury warrants, and his unexplained accumulation of wealth that included multiple mansions, condominium units, lots, vehicles, and business interests.
The order also referenced earlier administrative and criminal cases against him, as well as irregularities concerning his academic records.

On August 30, 1993, Bernabe appealed the dismissal to the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board.
On October 18, 1994, the National Appellate Board (Second Division) rendered a decision affirming the summary dismissal while directing an investigation into other administrative anomalies.
Bernabe’s motion for reconsideration before the National Appellate Board was denied on February 28, 1995.

On July 31, 1995, Bernabe filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals challenging his dismissal on two grounds:

On March 13, 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of Section 42 but set aside the decision of the National Appellate Board for not complying with due process, ordering Bernabe’s reinstatement and release of his withheld salary and allowances.
A motion to reconsider the CA decision, filed on April 07, 1997, was denied on July 11, 1997.

On December 24, 1997, Bernabe filed a comment asserting that he was deprived of a proper hearing—claiming that he was not afforded a full opportunity to present evidence or cross-examine his accusers.
The central issue on appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the decision of the National Appellate Board on the basis that Bernabe was denied his right to due process during the investigation and administrative proceedings.

Whether there was a violation of Bernabe’s right to due process in the administrative proceedings leading to his summary dismissal.

Did the administrative process, as conducted by the Chief of the PNP and the National Appellate Board, provide Bernabe with sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard?
Was the requirement of a full trial-type hearing necessary in the context of administrative proceedings?

Whether the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 42, R.A. 6975, has merit in the context of Bernabe’s dismissal.