Case Digest (G.R. No. 128305)
Facts:
Felino Quiambao v. The Court of Appeals, National Appellate Board, represented by its Chairman Federico S. Comandante and members, Attys. Roberto T. Agagon and Adelaida T. Aguilos of the National Police Commission, Raul S. Imperial, Police Chief, Philippine National Police and Espie S/L Catolico, G.R. No. 128305, March 28, 2005, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.On the evening of 22 December 1990, Espie S/L Catolico was allegedly accosted in Tondo, Manila by petitioner PO3 Felino Quiambao and others; her handbag was taken, she was brought to North Harbor, slapped and warned. Catolico filed a sworn complaint with the PNP Inspectorate Division on 24 June 1991 charging Quiambao (robbery-holdup and mauling); Grace Commendador corroborated the incident as an eyewitness. Catolico also filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Hearing Officer, NAPOLCOM (Western Police District) on 22 August 1991.
The PNP Inspectorate Division investigated and the Summary Dismissal Hearing Officer (SDHO) recommended dismissal; on 31 October 1992 the SDHO’s recommendation was approved by Acting PNP Chief Raul S. Imperial. Petitioner appealed to the National Appellate Board (NAB), Third Division, NAPOLCOM; on 25 October 1993 the NAB affirmed dismissal and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated 27 December 1993. Petitioner received a certified xerox copy of the NAB denial only on 23 September 1996.
On 7 October 1996 (petition filed dated 7 October 1996 per record), petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated 10 January 1997, dismissed the petition for lack of merit largely because the petition did not state the date petitioner received the NAB denial and thus failed to show filing within the reglementary period; it also held that the PNP Inspectorate Division had original, exclusive and summary jurisdiction and that the NAB decided on substantial evidence. Petitioner moved for extension and filed a motion for reconsideration; the CA denied extension and merely noted the motion as filed on 5 March 1997.
Petitioner then sought relief from the Supreme Court by filing a petition styled as a Petition for Review on...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss petitioner’s CA petition for failing to state the date he received the NAB resolution so as to determine compliance with the reglementary period for filing an appeal?
- Did the Acting PNP Chief have authority to conduct summary dismissal proceedings in this case, or was jurisdiction vested in another disciplining authority (e.g., the PLEB or NAPOLCOM Hearing Officer)?
- Was petitioner’s summary dismissal supported by substantial evidence and consistent with procedural due process, such that the NAB and the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion by permitting Catolico to introd...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)