G.R. No. 134278 , August 7, 2002
PFC RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (FORMERLY DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE), NAPOLCOM, AND ITS COMMISSIONERS, AND THE HON. SECRETARY OF THE DILG IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE NAPOLCOM CHAIRMAN, respondents.

FACTS

On July 5, 1990, petitioner PFC Rodolfo Rodriguez, along with two other policemen, flagged down a vehicle being used in an entrapment operation (OPLAN AJAX) by Counter-Intelligence Group operatives. The policemen informed the operatives of a traffic violation and demanded money. The operatives handed over marked bills. Petitioner and one companion were arrested and a physical examination found them positive for the ultraviolet fluorescent powder used to mark the money. An administrative case for grave misconduct (Adm. Case No. 90-80) was filed with the NAPOLCOM. A separate administrative case for summary dismissal (Adm. Case No. 01-91) was also filed. On February 7, 1991, the PNP Chief issued a summary dismissal order against petitioner. Petitioner appealed this dismissal to the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board, claiming a violation of due process as only a preliminary inquiry had been conducted and he was not afforded a chance to present his side. The Board dismissed his appeal on November 5, 1992. His motion for reconsideration was denied on March 11, 1996. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, contending grave abuse of discretion in his summary dismissal while Adm. Case No. 90-80 was still pending. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The Court ruled that members of the PNP are part of the civil service. Under the applicable laws and rules (Section 47(2) of Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 and its implementing rules), the proper remedy from a dismissal order by the PNP Director General, affirmed by the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board, was an appeal to the Secretary of the DILG, and thereafter, if adverse, to the Civil Service Commission, and finally to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner failed to avail of these successive appeals and instead improperly resorted to a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, which cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Furthermore, the Court found no denial of due process. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to be heard, which petitioner was afforded when he fully ventilated his defenses in his appeal to the NAPOLCOM Board. The dismissal of the related criminal case by the prosecutor did not exonerate him in the administrative action, as these are separate proceedings with different purposes and standards of proof.