G.R. No. 154243 . March 6, 2007.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL ROBERTO LASTIMOSO, ACTING CHIEF PNP, DIRECTORATE FOR PERSONNEL AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT, INSPECTOR GENERAL, P/CHIEF SUPT. RAMSEY OCAMPO and P/SUPT. ELMER REJANO, Petitioners, vs. P/SENIOR INSPECTOR JOSE J. ASAYO, Respondent.

FACTS

In 1997, a private citizen, Delia Buño, filed an administrative complaint for abuse of authority/harassment against P/Senior Inspector Jose J. Asayo (respondent) with the PNP Inspector General. The complaint alleged that respondent obstructed the arrest of his brother, a suspect in a shooting. The Inspector General conducted a pre-charge investigation and, despite respondent’s jurisdictional challenge favoring the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), recommended summary dismissal proceedings. The PNP Chief approved this, and the case proceeded to a summary hearing officer.
During the summary hearing, respondent was furnished with the investigation report and witness affidavits. He submitted his counter-affidavit and rejoinder. When offered the chance to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses, he declined and agreed to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings. The hearing officer found respondent guilty of grave misconduct, and the PNP Chief issued a decision dismissing him from service. Respondent withdrew a motion for reconsideration and instead filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which annulled the PNP Chief’s decision for grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether respondent’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the National Appellate Board was fatal to his judicial petition; and (2) whether the PNP Chief had jurisdiction over the citizen’s complaint against respondent, given the alleged penalty of dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the Court of Appeals’ initial decision which had upheld the PNP Chief’s jurisdiction. On the first issue, the Court held that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies admits exceptions, such as when the question is purely legal. Respondent’s challenge to the PNP Chief’s jurisdiction presented precisely such a legal question, thus his direct resort to the RTC via certiorari was permissible.
On the substantive jurisdictional issue, the Court ruled that the PNP Chief indeed had authority. Citing Republic Act No. 6975 , specifically Section 41(c), the law provides that complaints where the penalty is dismissal from service fall under the jurisdiction of the Chief of the PNP. The Court clarified that the PLEB’s jurisdiction under Section 43 is limited to offenses where the penalty does not exceed thirty days’ suspension or a fine, or where dismissal is imposed but the respondent waives the right to a pre-charge investigation before the PNP authorities. Since the complaint was properly filed with and investigated by the Inspector General, and respondent participated in the proceedings, jurisdiction rightfully vested with the PNP Chief. The Court also found that respondent was accorded due process, as he was given the opportunity to be heard and voluntarily waived his right to cross-examination, a right not imperative in administrative proceedings.