Title
Supreme Court
Go vs. NAPOLCOM
Case
G.R. No. 107845
Decision Date
Apr 18, 1997
A police officer dismissed for alleged illegal gambling involvement successfully challenged his termination, as the Supreme Court ruled he was denied due process, annulling his dismissal and ordering reinstatement with backwages and benefits.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 107845)

Factual Background of Dismissal

Petitioner Edgar M. Go was dismissed from the police force following accusations of involvement in illegal gambling activities, particularly the operation of jai-alai bookies out of his residence. The Summary Dismissal Board's investigation, conducted after two raids on his house, revealed substantial evidence of illegal gambling, including witness testimonies, despite Go’s absence during the proceedings. The Board concluded that it was implausible for Go, as a policeman, to be unaware of the ongoing unlawful activities in his home.

Procedural History and Claims of Due Process Violations

Following his dismissal, Go asserted that he was deprived of due process. He claimed that he did not receive proper notification regarding the complaints against him or any supporting affidavits, thereby inhibiting his ability to mount a defense. Go recounted multiple instances where he appeared for hearings that were either postponed or abandoned due to the absence of the complainants or board members. He contended that the summary dismissal process lacked procedural integrity, resulting in a mere assumption of guilt.

Administrative Appeals and Decisions

Go's appeal to the Director General of the PC/INP met with denial based on the findings of the Summary Dismissal Board, which appeared to support the claim of significant wrongdoing on Go's part. The subsequent challenge to the NAPOLCOM also failed, as they upheld the board's conclusions regarding Go's involvement in the jai-alai operations. The NAPOLCOM cited multiple instances of illegal activities conducted out of Go's residence and dismissed his due process claims as unfounded, stating that he received adequate notice to defend himself.

Judicial Review and Findings on Due Process

In reviewing the administrative decisions, the court found merit in Go's claims of denied due process. Notably, it concluded that the absence of formal written charges alongside the lack of supplied evidence constituted a significant breach of the procedural safeguards outlined in P.D. No. 971. The ruling reaffirmed that the requirement of being informed of charges, as well as bei

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.