NAB VS PNP

2 CHILD ABUSED AND MALTREATED

TURNOVER TO DSWD
ANGELES FILED CASEAGAINST POLICE
ADMIN:
1. On March 2, 1995, respondents Ganias, Almario and Mamauag submitted an
Initial Investigation Report to the District Director, CPDC, and respondent Ganias
turned over a Report to the DSWD merely on the basis of a verbal report of Agnes
Lucero on Judge Reyes alleged maltreatment of Nancy Gaspar and Proclyn
Pacay without getting the required sworn statements of the two (2) girls and Agnes
Lucero;
2. While the two girls were under police custody, respondents found in the
possession of Pacay several items of jewelry and clothing materials belonging to
and stolen from complainant Judge Angeles. Complainants witnesses, Dr. Sagradia
Aldova, Oliva Angeles and Mary Ann Agustin requested the respondents to register
in the police logbook the discovery of the stolen articles but to no avail;
3. Despite the insistent request of said witnesses and subsequently of the
complainant that a report for qualified theft be entered in the police
blotter, respondents maliciously refused to act upon the incident and conduct
further investigation;
4. Respondents bad faith and highly irregular conduct in handling the maltreatment
charge against complainant was also manifested when respondents did not give her
a chance to explain her side by not contacting her although her residence is just a
few houses away from the police station;
5. Even before she was informed of the accusations against her, the police leaked
the baseless maltreatment case against her as shown by the presence of so many
people and members of the media as well as the Human Rights Commission
personnel at the police station;
6. The fact that no case has yet been filed against her shows that the whole event
was maliciously manipulated by her detractors to harass and malign complainant
with the willing assistance of men in uniform. [4]
PNP CHIEF:
Dismissed from service. Rtc mandamus- exhaust admin resort
NAB

Late filinglack of merit= 10 days, chose another remedy

Ca

First of all, the said provision expressly states that the disciplinary action imposed
upon a member of the PNP shall be final and executory. Nowhere does the said
provision grant any party to move for a reconsideration of any disciplinary action
imposed as the remedy provided thereunder is an appeal of either party of the decision
to the National Appellate Board, if such involves a demotion or dismissal of a
member of the PNP. In fact, since the original decision only suspended petitioners
Mamauag and Almario from service and even exonerated Felipe and Garcia, the said
decision is not even subject to any appeal. The said decision clearly does not involve
any demotion nor dismissal which could properly be appealed to the NAB.
Moreover, even under the assumption that a motion for reconsideration is allowed, the
one filed by Judge Angeles should not have merited any consideration from the PNP
Chief. Judge Angeles did not have the personality to make such a motion.
While Sec. 45 of R.A. 6975 does not clearly provide who may appeal (or for that
matter make any motion for reconsideration) from the decision of the PNP Chief, the
last clause mentions either party may appeal with the Secretary and by the doctrine of
necessary implication this extends to said decision of the PNP Chief.
It is elementary that in an administrative case, the complainant is a mere witness.
No private interest is involved in an administrative case as the offense committed
is against the government. As held by the Supreme Court in Paredes vs. Civil
Service Commission:
As correctly ruled by private respondent, petitioner Paredes the complainant is not the
party adversely affected by the decision so that she has no legal personality to
interpose an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. In an administrative case, the
complainant is a mere witness (GONZALO VS. D. RODA, 64 SCRA 120). Even if
she is the Head of Administrative Services Department of the HSRC as a
complainant she is merely a witness for the government in an administrative
case. No private interest is involved in an administrative case as the offense is
committed against the government. (Emphasis supplied)
Sc
Dacocoy:

dacoycoy allowed the Civil Service Commission to appeal dismissals of charges or exoneration of
respondents in administrative disciplinary proceedings. However, Dacoycoymaintained the rule that
the private complainant is a mere government witness without a right to appeal. [21] Thus, case law
holding that the private complainant has no right to appeal the decision of the disciplining authority
remains good law. As explained by Justice Jose Melo in his concurring opinion in Floralde v. Court
of Appeals

ruling
However, the government party that can appeal is not the disciplining authority or tribunal which
previously heard the case and imposed the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service. The
government party appealing must be one that is prosecuting the administrative case against the
respondent. Otherwise, an anomalous situation will result where the disciplining authority or tribunal
hearing the case, instead of being impartial and detached, becomes an active participant in
prosecuting the respondent. Thus, in Mathay, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[24] decided after Dacoycoy,
the Court declared:

CSC v DACOCYCOC
Respondent Dacoycoy is the Vocational School Administrator, Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades,
Allen, Northern Samar. It is true that he did not appoint or recommend his two sons to the positions
of driver and utility worker in the Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades. In fact, it was Mr. Jaime
Daclag, Head of the Vocational Department of the BCAT, who recommended the appointment of
Rito. Mr. Daclag's authority to recommend the appointment of first level positions such as watchmen,
security guards, drivers, utility workers, and casuals and emergency laborers for short durations of
three to six months was recommended by respondent Dacoycoy and approved by DECS Regional
Director Eladio C. Dioko, with the provision that such positions shall be under Mr. Daclags immediate
supervision. On July 1, 1992, Atty. Victorino B. Tirol II, Director III, DECS Regional Office VIII, Palo,
Leyte, appointed Rito Dacoycoy driver of the school. On January 3, 1993, Mr. Daclag also appointed
Ped Dacoycoy casual utility worker. However, it was respondent Dacoycoy who certified that funds
are available for the proposed appointment of Rito Dacoycoy and even rated his performance as
very satisfactory. On the other hand, his son Ped stated in his position description form that his
father was his next higher supervisor. The circumvention of the ban on nepotism is quite
obvious. Unquestionably, Mr. Daclag was a subordinate of respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy, who was
the school administrator.He authorized Mr. Daclag to recommend the appointment of first level
employees under his immediate supervision. Then Mr. Daclag recommended the appointment of
respondents two sons and placed them under respondents immediate supervision serving as driver
and utility worker of the school. Both positions are career positions.

RULLING

There is no question that respondent Dacoycoy may appeal to the Court of Appeals from the
decision of the Civil Service Commission adverse to him.[10] He was the respondent official meted
out the penalty of dismissal from the service. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court
required the petitioner therein, here respondent Dacoycoy, to implead the Civil Service
Commission as public respondent[11] as the government agency tasked with the duty to enforce
the constitutional and statutory provisions on the civil service.[12]

the Civil Service Commission has become the party adversely affected by such ruling, which
seriously prejudices the civil service system. Hence, as an aggrieved party, it may appeal the
decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.[14] By this ruling, we now expressly
abandon and overrule extant jurisprudence that the phrase party adversely affected by the
decision refers to the government employee against whom the administrative case is filed for
the purpose of disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or
salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office[15] and not included are cases where the penalty
imposed is suspension for not more then thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding
thirty days salary[16] or when the respondent is exonerated of the charges, there is no occasion
for appeal.[17] In other words, we overrule prior decisions holding that the Civil Service Law does
not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from administrative
charges enunciated in Paredes v. Civil Service Commission;[18] Mendez v. Civil Service

Commission;[19] Magpale v. Civil Service Commission;[20] Navarro v. Civil Service Commission and
Export Processing Zone Authority[21] and more recently Del Castillo v. Civil Service Commission[22]

PAREDES
Here the MSPB after hearing and the submission of memoranda exonerated private
respondent Amor of all charges except for habitual tardiness. The penalty was only a
reprimand so that even private respondent Amor, the party adversely affected by the
decision, cannot even interpose an appeal to the Civil Service Commission.
chanroble s virtual law library

As correctly ruled by private respondent, petitioner Paredes the complainant is not the party
adversely affected by the decision so that she has no legal personality to interpose an
appeal to the Civil Service Commission. In an administrative case, the complainant is a
mere witness (Gonzalo v. D. Roda, 64 SCRA 120). Even if she is the Head of the
Administrative Services Department of the HSRC as a complainant she is merely a witness
for the government in an administrative case. No private interest is involved in an
administrative case as the offense is committed against the government.

MATHAY

Basic is the rule that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest. [22] A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.

In Ralla vs. Ralla we defined interest as material interest, an interest in issue and
to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question
involved, or mere incidental interest. [23]As a general rule, one having no right or interest to protect
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a party-plaintiff in an action.

In the case at bar, it is evident that Jovito C. Labajo, not the Civil Service
Commission, is the real party in interest. It is Jovito C. Labajo who will be benefited
or injured by his reinstatement or non-reinstatement.
We are aware of our pronouncements in the recent case of Civil Service
Commission v. Pedro Dacoycoy[24] which overturned our rulings in Paredes vs. Civil
Service Commission,[25] Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission [26] and Magpale vs. Civil
Service Commission.[27] In Dacoycoy, we affirmed the right of the Civil Service
Commission to bring an appeal as the aggrieved party affected by a ruling which may
seriously prejudice the civil service system.
The aforementioned case, however, is different from the case at
bar. Dacoycoy was an administrative case involving nepotism whose deleterious effect
on government cannot be overemphasized. The subject of the present case, on the
other hand, is reinstatement.
We fail to see how the present petition, involving as it does the reinstatement or
non-reinstatement of one obviously reluctant to litigate, can impair the effectiveness
of government. Accordingly, the ruling in Dacoycoy does not apply.

PNB V GARCIA
There is nothing in the law that bars an appeal of a decision exonerating a government official
or an employee from an administrative charge. If a statute is clear, plain and free form ambiguity, it
must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Indeed, the campaign
against corruption, malfeasance and misfeasance in government will be undermined if the
government or the private offended party is prevented from appealing erroneous administrative
decisions.

The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but a mere statutory privilege
that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. [9] Under Presidential Decree (PD) 807,
the CSC has jurisdiction over appeals of administrative disciplinary cases, in which the penalty
imposed is suspension for more than thirty days; a fine exceeding thirty days salary; a demotion in
rank or salary; or transfer, removal, or dismissal from office.

Citing Mendez v. Civil Service Commission, the CA construed the phrase

party adversely affected in the above-quoted provision to refer solely to the
public officer or employee who was administratively disciplined. Hence, an
appeal may be availed of only in a case where the respondent is found guilty.
[12]

[13]

However, this interpretation has been overturned in Civil Service

Commission v. Dacoycoy. Speaking through Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, the
Court said that we now expressly abandon and overrule extant jurisprudence
that the phrase party adversely affected by the decision refers to the
government employee against whom the administrative case is filed for the
[14]

purpose of disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension,

demotion in rank or salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office x x x.
ndeed, the battles against corruption, malfeasance and misfeasance will
be seriously undermined if we bar appeals of exoneration. After all,
administrative cases do not partake of the nature of criminal actions, in which
acquittals are final and unappealable based on the constitutional proscription
of double jeopardy.
[21]

Furthermore, our new Constitution expressly expanded the range and

scope of judicial review. Thus, to prevent appeals of administrative decisions
except those initiated by employees will effectively and pervertedly erode this
constitutional grant.
Finally, the Court in Dacoycoy ruled that the CSC had acted well within its
rights in appealing the CAs exoneration of the respondent public official
therein, because it has been mandated by the Constitution to preserve and
safeguard the integrity of our civil service system. In the same light, herein
Petitioner PNB has the standing to appeal to the CA the exoneration of
Respondent Garcia. After all, it is the aggrieved party which has complained of
his acts of dishonesty. Besides, this Court has not lost sight of the fact that
PNB was already privatized on May 27, 1996. Should respondent be finally
exonerated indeed, it might then be incumbent upon petitioner to take him
back into its fold. It should therefore be allowed to appeal a decision that in its
view hampers its right to select honest and trustworthy employees, so that it
can protect and preserve its name as a premier banking institution in our
country.