G.R. No. 177878 ; April 7, 2010
SPO1 LEONITO ACUZAR, Petitioner, vs. APRONIANO JOROLAN and HON. EDUARDO A. APRESA, PEOPLE’S LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD (PLEB) Chairman, New Corella, Davao del Norte, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Aproniano Jorolan filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct against petitioner SPO1 Leonito Acuzar before the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), alleging an illicit relationship with Jorolan’s minor daughter. A related criminal case for violation of the Child Abuse Act was also filed. Petitioner filed a Counter-Affidavit with a supporting affidavit from the daughter denying the allegations. He moved to suspend the PLEB proceedings pending the criminal case, but the PLEB denied the motion, conducted a hearing, and subsequently found him guilty, ordering his dismissal. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing denial of due process and lack of jurisdiction, as the PLEB proceeded without a prior criminal conviction.
The RTC annulled the PLEB decision, holding petitioner was denied due process as the record showed no hearing was scheduled for the reception of his evidence. Upon appeal by respondents, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC. The CA ruled that certiorari was an improper remedy because an appeal to the PNP regional appellate board was available, and petitioner failed to exhaust this administrative remedy or demonstrate grounds for immediate resort to certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner’s resort to a petition for certiorari before the RTC was improper and that he was not denied due process in the PLEB proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. On the procedural issue, the Court held that certiorari is not allowed when an appeal is available, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Under Republic Act No. 6975 and its implementing rules, a decision of the PLEB is appealable to the regional appellate board. Petitioner’s failure to exhaust this plain and adequate administrative remedy rendered his petition for certiorari before the RTC procedurally infirm. The RTC thus erred in entertaining it.
On the substantive issue of due process, the Court found no violation. Due process in administrative proceedings does not require a trial-type hearing; it is satisfied when a party is given a fair opportunity to explain his side. The PLEB’s Revised Rules of Procedure allow decisions based on position papers, affidavits, and documentary evidence. Petitioner actively participated by filing a Counter-Affidavit and a motion for reconsideration. He was afforded a reasonable chance to present his defense through these pleadings and the attached affidavit of the complainant’s daughter. His claim of denial of due process was therefore unfounded.