Title
National Appellate Board of the National Police Commission vs. Mamauag
Case
G.R. No. 149999
Decision Date
Aug 12, 2005
Two minors accused Judge Angeles of maltreatment; police mishandled the case. PNP Chief’s ruling overturned; private complainant lacked standing to appeal. Original dismissal reinstated.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149999)

Antecedent Facts

On March 2, 1995, minors Nancy Gaspar and Proclyn Pacay, reportedly suffering from moderate or mild mental retardation, fled from the home of Judge Angeles. They were discovered by Agnes Lucero, who took them to the Baler Police Station in Quezon City. After filing a complaint regarding alleged maltreatment and non-payment of salary by Judge Angeles, several police officers, including SPO1 Jaime Billedo, investigated and later escorted the minors to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The incident led to multiple lawsuits, including a criminal child abuse case against Judge Angeles and an administrative complaint against the involved police officers.

Administrative Complaint and Investigations

Judge Angeles filed an administrative complaint alleging that the police mishandled the initial investigation, lacked proper sworn statements from the minors, and improperly disclosed details of the case to the media. The CPDC's Inspectorate and Legal Affairs Division recommended dismissal of the complaint against the officers, a decision subsequently approved by the CPDC District Director.

Ruling of the PNP Chief

In a ruling dated June 7, 1996, PNP Chief Recaredo Sarmiento found several police officers guilty of serious neglect and suspended Mamauag and Almario for 90 days. Following a motion for partial reconsideration, Sarmiento reversed his decision on July 3, 1997, dismissing Mamauag, Almario, Garcia, and Felipe for misconduct.

Appeal to the Regional Trial Court

Mamauag and the others filed a petition for certiorari against Sarmiento, which the Regional Trial Court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Subsequently, the officers appealed to the NAB, where their appeal was dismissed due to late filing and procedural issues.

Ruling of the National Appellate Board

The NAB's decision on March 3, 2000, emphasized that Mamauag et al. had defaulted on their right to appeal by opting for judicial remedies rather than administrative ones, therefore undermining their position and resulting in a dismissal for lack of merit.

Court of Appeals' Decision

The Court of Appeals ruled on September 6, 2001, that the actions taken by PNP Chief Sarmiento were made in excess of jurisdiction, thus nullifying the resolutions regarding dismissal. The court articulated that the disciplinary actions under Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975 are final and only appealable if they involve demotion or dismissal, which did not apply in this case as the original penalties did not meet these criteria.

Legal Reasoning

The Court clarified that the complainant, Judge Angeles, had no standing to file motions for reconsideration or appeals in administrative cases, as she was merely a witness for the state. The appellate court highlighted that the right to appeal or motion does not extend to parties not adversely affected by the ruling, reinforcing the principle that administrative actions are aimed at protecting the integrity of public service and do not involve private interests.

Final Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the Co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.