Case Digest (G.R. No. 149999)
Facts:
The National Appellate Board (NAB) of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) v. P/Insp. John A. Mamauag, et al., G.R. No. 149999, August 12, 2005, First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Very early on 2 March 1995 two minor girls, Nancy Gaspar and Proclyn Pacay, both later classified as having mild-to-moderate mental retardation by the DSWD, left the home of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles and were found by Agnes Lucero near the Cubao bus terminal. Lucero reported alleged maltreatment by Judge Angeles. The girls were brought to Baler Police Station 2, CPDC, where desk officer SPO1 Jaime Billedo recorded their statements. SPO1 Roberto Carino took the girls to East Avenue Medical Center for medical examinations, prepared an Initial Investigation Report reviewed by SPO2 Eugene V. Almario and approved by P/Insp. John A. Mamauag. SPO1 Vivian M. Felipe and SPO4 Erlinda L. Garcia escorted the minors to the DSWD; P/Insp. Roberto V. Ganias signed the Letter of Turnover.
Judge Angeles filed multiple actions: a criminal case under R.A. No. 7610 and an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Ganias, Mamauag, Almario, Carino, Felipe and Garcia (later impleading Billedo). The CPDC Inspectorate and Legal Affairs Division (ILAD) investigated and, by Resolution dated 10 April 1995, the CPDC District Director dismissed the administrative complaint. Judge Angeles sought re‑investigation before PNP Chief Recaredo Sarmiento II.
In a Decision dated 7 June 1996, PNP Chief Sarmiento found Ganias, Billedo and Carino guilty of serious neglect and ordered dismissal; Mamauag and Almario were found guilty of less serious neglect and suspended 90 days; Garcia and Felipe were exonerated. After Judge Angeles filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the PNP Chief issued a Resolution dated 3 July 1997 modifying his earlier ruling and dismissing Mamauag, Almario, Garcia and Felipe from the service.
Mamauag, Almario, Garcia and Felipe filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the RTC, which dismissed it for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. They then appealed administratively to the NAB. The NAB, by Decision dated 3 March 2000, dismissed their appeal as late-filed and for lack of merit; its denial of reconsideration was embodied in a 30 June 2000 Resolution. The Court of Appeals, however, in a Decision promulgated 6 September 2001, set aside the PNP Chief’s 3 July 1997 Resolution as rendered in excess of jurisdiction and also set aside the NAB’s 3 March 2000 Decision and 30 June 2000 Resolutio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975 permit the filing of a motion for reconsideration from a disciplining authority’s decision, or is the remedy limited to the appeals provided in Sections 43 and 45?
- Does a private complainant in an administrative disciplinary case have the legal personality to move for reconsideration or to appeal an adverse decision...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)