G.R. No. 119645 August 22, 1996
SPO3 NOEL CABADA and SPO3 RODOLFO G. DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. HON. RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government & Chairman, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM); HON. ALEXIS CANONIZADO, Commissioner, NAPOLCOM, Manila; Chairman LEODEGARIO ALFARO, Regional Appellate Board VIII; Regional Director EDMUNDO LAVILLA LARROZA, Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Command VIII; and MARIO VALDEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners SPO3 Noel Cabada and SPO3 Rodolfo G. de Guzman were administratively charged with Grave Misconduct and dismissed from the PNP service by the Regional Director of PNP-RECOM 8 on 7 April 1994. They appealed to the Regional Appellate Board (RAB 8), which affirmed their dismissal on 15 August 1994 and denied their motion for reconsideration on 25 October 1994. The petitioners received the denial resolution on 26 January 1995. Subsequently, on 4 and 5 February 1995, they filed a Petition for Review and an Appeal, respectively, with the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
The NAPOLCOM, in a decision dated 24 March 1995, denied due course to their appeal and petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the RAB 8 decision had become final and executory, citing its own Memorandum Circulars. The NAPOLCOM held that since the petitioners filed their appeal beyond the reglementary period and there was no showing that the RAB failed to decide their case within the prescribed 60 days, it no longer had jurisdiction to review the matter.

ISSUE

Whether the NAPOLCOM committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the NAPOLCOM committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the hierarchy of administrative appeals and the applicable law governing PNP personnel. The Court clarified that under Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975 (the DILG Act of 1990), the decision of the Regional Appellate Board is appealable to the National Appellate Board, not directly to the NAPOLCOM. More critically, the Court held that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) retains appellate jurisdiction over PNP disciplinary cases involving penalties of dismissal, removal, or suspension for more than thirty days, pursuant to Section 47, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987. The PNP is part of the civil service, and its members are subject to CSC jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioners’ proper and final administrative recourse was an appeal to the CSC, not to the NAPOLCOM. Consequently, the NAPOLCOM’s denial of the appeal, while correct in outcome (as it was not the proper forum), was based on an erroneous premise regarding finality under its circulars rather than the correct jurisdictional hierarchy. The Court, however, ultimately dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to exhaust the correct administrative remedy by appealing to the CSC.