GR 127625; (May, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127625 . May 31, 2000
PO1 Virgilio Flora Cara, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals (Fourth Division), The Honorable Rafael M. Alunan III, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, National Police Commission (Regional Appellate Board) People’s Law Enforcement Board, District III, Quezon City, and Teodoro B. Chua, respondents.
FACTS
On March 7, 1993, petitioner PO1 Virgilio Cara, while off-duty, was buying bread when a car driven by private respondent Teodoro Chua sideswiped his parked vehicle. After signaling Chua to stop, an altercation ensued where Chua assaulted both Cara and his companion. Cara identified himself as a police officer and attempted to invite Chua to the police station. Chua subsequently filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Cara before the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB).
The PLEB found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from the Philippine National Police. This decision was affirmed on appeal by the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Regional Appellate Board. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, which was denied on the ground that the Secretary had no appellate jurisdiction over the NAPOLCOM Board’s decision. Petitioner subsequently elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari and mandamus.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review of the NAPOLCOM resolutions which dismissed petitioner from the police service.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The Court held that the special civil actions of certiorari and mandamus are proper only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction committed by a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. They are not remedies for correcting errors of judgment or errors in the appreciation of evidence. The grounds raised by petitioner essentially questioned the factual findings of the PLEB and the NAPOLCOM Board, which involved an evaluation of the evidence presented in the administrative case. Such factual assessments are beyond the scope of a certiorari proceeding.
Furthermore, the Court agreed with the appellate court’s alternative ruling that even if the petition were treated as an appeal via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, it was filed out of time. Petitioner failed to comply with the reglementary period for filing such an appeal. Consequently, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the petition. The administrative findings of guilt for grave misconduct, having been sustained by the proper appellate police authorities, were thus final.