G.R. No. 250804 , February 25, 2025
Police Major Alfred Arturo, Petitioner, vs. [Respondent not named in provided text], Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Police Major Alfred Arturo was assigned to parade and flag-raising duties for the Philippine National Police’s (PNP) 25th anniversary parade in January 2016. An administrative action was filed against him for two counts of less grave neglect of duty for missing a rehearsal on January 21, 2016, and for failing to perform his parade duties. He explained he missed the rehearsal to claim his mother’s medical reports from the PNP General Hospital and attended the foundation day but did not march as he was a reserve. Former PNP Chief Ronald Dela Rosa found him guilty of one count of less grave neglect of duty for missing the rehearsal and imposed a 50-day suspension, dismissing the other charge. After an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was denied outright for being an inappropriate remedy. Petitioner contends he had no other remedy, citing Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975 , which states disciplinary actions on PNP members are “final and executory,” and arguing his 50-day suspension, not being demotion or dismissal, was not subject to ordinary appeal.

ISSUE

What is the correct appellate process for disciplinary actions involving members of the Philippine National Police, particularly when the penalty imposed is a 50-day suspension?

RULING

The Concurring Opinion agrees with the ponencia’s dismissal of the petition but clarifies the appellate process. It holds that the petitioner utilized an incorrect remedy by immediately filing a special civil action for certiorari. Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975 explicitly provides that disciplinary actions upon a PNP member are final and executory, with an appeal available only if the penalty involves demotion or dismissal. Since the penalty here was a 50-day suspension (not demotion or dismissal), no appeal under R.A. No. 6975 was available. However, this provision must be harmonized with the Civil Service Law. Under Book V, Title I(A), Section 47 of Executive Order No. 292 (The Administrative Code), the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has appellate jurisdiction over cases involving a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days. Therefore, for a 50-day suspension, the proper remedy was not a direct certiorari to the Court of Appeals, but an appeal to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and then to the Civil Service Commission, as provided under the Revised Rules of Procedure of the National Police Commission. The rigid disciplinary process is justified to maintain the integrity and accountability of the police force.