Mendoza vs. National Police Commission

A PNP member dismissed by the Regional Director must appeal to the Regional Appellate Board, then to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government and finally to the Civil Service Commission before seeking judicial intervention; failure to exhaust these available administrative remedies is fatal to the cause. The requirement follows from Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975 in relation to civil service laws, and non-compliance warrants dismissal of a court action.

Petitioner PO3 William M. Mendoza was a member of the Philippine National Police subject to administrative discipline for grave misconduct. Respondents were the National Police Commission Regional Appellate Board and the District Director, Southern Police District, Philippine National Police, the bodies charged with reviewing PNP disciplinary actions. The governing framework was Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975, the Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, which makes dismissal appealable to the Regional Appellate Board and thereafter to the Secretary, with the Philippine National Police falling under the civil service.

Teodoro V. Conti, floor manager of Nikko's Music Lounge, filed an affidavit-complaint for illegal arrest, illegal detention, physical injuries, and robbery against petitioner PO3 William M. Mendoza and PO2 Angelita Ramos, both members of the Philippine National Police. On that basis, P/Chief Superintendent Orlando H. Macaspac, then District Director of the PNP Southern Police District Office, National Capital Region, administratively charged the two officers with grave misconduct.

According to the charge, at about 2:30 a.m. on February 21, 1993 inside the HI-PITCH Disco Club on Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, the two respondents forcibly arrested Conti at gunpoint and brought him to the Office of the District Special Operations Unit. While inside that office, PO2 Ramos allegedly ordered the victim to remove his gold necklace and forced him to swallow it; when he resisted, she struck him with the butt of a gun and inserted the barrel into his mouth. Thereafter both respondents allegedly mauled him, inflicting multiple injuries on his face, placed him inside a detention cell, and took his money amounting to ₱970.00, including three pieces of jewelry consisting of a gold necklace, wrist watch, and gold bracelet. Petitioner and PO2 Ramos submitted a joint-affidavit denying the charge.

After conducting a summary proceeding, PNP Regional Director Oscar T. Aquino on April 15, 1993 rendered a Decision finding the two policemen guilty as charged and ordering their dismissal from the service. On appeal, the Regional Appellate Board of the National Police Commission, National Capital Region, on August 23, 1993 affirmed the Regional Director's Decision. Petitioner moved for reconsideration on the ground that he was not able to participate in the clarificatory hearing, but the Board denied the motion for lack of merit in its Resolution dated December 17, 1993. Thereafter petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition for certiorari, docketed as Special Civil Case No. 96-074, alleging denial of due process and praying for annulment of the Board's Decision and Resolution.

• Due Process: Petitioner alleged that he was denied due process in the administrative proceedings, asserting in his motion for reconsideration before the Board that he was not able to participate in the clarificatory hearing, and prayed in the trial court that the Board's Decision dated August 23, 1993 and Resolution dated December 17, 1993 be annulled.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals committed grave error of law in dismissing Special Civil Action No. 96-074 on the ground that he failed to exhaust all administrative remedies.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Respondent Board, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that petitioner failed to exhaust all administrative remedies because before seeking judicial intervention he should have first appealed the Board's Decision to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, then to the Civil Service Commission.
• Due Process Observed: Respondent countered that contrary to petitioner's claim, he was accorded due process during the administrative proceedings before the Board.
• Grave Abuse by Trial Court: Respondent maintained in the Court of Appeals that the Regional Trial Court, in denying the motion to dismiss, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Whether petitioner's failure to appeal the Regional Appellate Board Decision to the Department of the Interior and Local Government Secretary and thereafter to the Civil Service Commission bars judicial recourse and warrants dismissal.
• Prior Motion for Reconsideration: Whether resort to the Supreme Court without filing a comment below and without moving for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals Decision renders the petition dismissible.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Yes. Dismissal was proper because an available administrative appeal to the Secretary and ultimately to the Civil Service Commission was not taken, and non-exhaustion is fatal where a remedy exists within the administrative machinery.
• Prior Motion for Reconsideration: Yes. The petition fails because a motion for reconsideration is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that affords the court opportunity to correct error, and disregard of that norm without explanation indicates lack of merit.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975 makes dismissal imposed by the Regional Director appealable to the Regional Appellate Board within ten days, with further appeal by either party to the Secretary if the Board fails to act or renders an adverse decision. Because the Philippine National Police is civilian in character and falls under the civil service pursuant to Section 6, Article XVI and Section 2(1), Article IX-B of the Constitution, Section 91 of the Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990 and Section 47 of the Civil Service Law apply, allowing appeal from the Department to the Commission. Petitioner stopped at the Board and never appealed to the Secretary, much less to the Commission, despite those plainly available remedies. Where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, it must first be resorted to; hence non-exhaustion was fatal and no reversible error was committed in dismissing the trial court action.
• Prior Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner neither filed a comment on the Board's certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals despite due notice nor interposed a motion for reconsideration of the adverse Decision, without even explaining the omissions. Such conduct was deemed not the normal actuation of an aggrieved party and indicated a frivolous cause. A motion for reconsideration gives the court opportunity either to correct imputed errors or to clarify and strengthen its ruling and convince the movant of his wrong position, thereby ending controversy and preventing unnecessary appellate resort. Disregard of that procedural norm to attain speedy, inexpensive, and orderly proceedings could not be countenanced.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — Where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, it must first be resorted to before seeking judicial intervention; failure to do so is fatal to the cause. Applied here to require appeal from the Regional Appellate Board to the Department of the Interior and Local Government Secretary and then to the Civil Service Commission before filing certiorari in court.
• Finality and Appeal of PNP Disciplinary Action under Section 45, Republic Act No. 6975 — Disciplinary action imposed upon a PNP member is final and executory, except that demotion or dismissal imposed by the Regional Director may be appealed to the Regional Appellate Board within ten days, and failure of the Board to decide within sixty days renders the decision final and executory without prejudice to appeal by either party to the Secretary. Applied to show petitioner's case still had an administrative appeal route that was not taken.
• PNP as Part of the Civil Service — The State maintains one police force civilian in character, and the PNP falls under the civil service embracing all government branches and agencies, with civil service laws applying to Department personnel and bureau decisions appealable through the Department to the Commission. Applied to sustain the required appeal chain from the Secretary to the Civil Service Commission.
• Motion for Reconsideration as Plain, Speedy, and Adequate Remedy — A motion for reconsideration must ordinarily be filed to give the court opportunity to correct error or clarify its ruling, preventing premature appellate proceedings. Applied to fault petitioner for bypassing the Court of Appeals reconsideration stage without explanation.

• "It is elementary that where, as here, a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should first be resorted to." — States the controlling exhaustion rule that rendered petitioner's direct court action fatal for bypassing appeal to the Secretary and the Commission.
• "The filing of a motion for reconsideration will give the court the opportunity to either (a) correct the error/s imputed to it or (b) clarify and strengthened its ruling on the issue and hopefully convince the movant of his wrong position." — Defines the function of reconsideration and the basis for rejecting petitioner's premature resort to the Supreme Court.
• "as an exception to the rule on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, a party may go directly to the court where x x x the controverted acts were allegedly performed without or in excess of jurisdiction for utter disregard of due process." — Reproduces the trial court's ground for denying dismissal, which the Court of Appeals reversed and the Supreme Court did not sustain.
• "failure of the Regional Appellate Board to act on the appeal within said period shall render the decision final and executory without prejudice, however, to the filing of an appeal by either party with the Secretary." — Quotes the statutory proviso preserving further administrative appeal and proving an unexhausted remedy remained.

• Metro Transit Organization, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142133, November 19, 2002 — Cited as authority that a motion for reconsideration is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.
• Mayor Edgardo G. Flores vs. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, et al., G.R. No. 159022, February 21, 2005 — Cited alongside Metro Transit for the same proposition on the importance of a motion for reconsideration.
• Yau vs. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 126731, July 11, 2002 — Cited for the purpose of reconsideration in allowing the court to correct errors or clarify its ruling and avoid premature appellate proceedings.
• Lopez vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 127139, February 19, 1999 — Cited as authority for the elementary rule that an available administrative remedy must first be resorted to.
• Aquino vs. Mariano, G.R. No. L-30485, May 31, 1984 — Cited alongside Lopez for the same exhaustion-of-remedies rule.

• Section 45, Republic Act No. 6975 (Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990) — Governs finality and appeal of PNP disciplinary action; applied to hold that dismissal by the Regional Director is appealable to the Regional Appellate Board and thereafter to the Secretary.
• Section 91, Republic Act No. 6975 — Provides that civil service law applies to all Department personnel; applied to bring PNP personnel within civil service appeal procedures.
• Section 6, Article XVI, Constitution — Mandates one civilian police force; applied to establish the PNP's civilian character.
• Section 2(1), Article IX-B, Constitution — Provides that the civil service embraces all government branches and agencies; applied to place the PNP under the civil service.
• Section 47, Book V (Subtitle A), Administrative Code of 1987 (Civil Service Law) — Provides that a bureau or office decision appealable to the Civil Service Commission may initially be appealed to the Department and finally to the Commission; applied to require appeal from the Secretary to the Commission after the Board.

Panganiban, Chairman, Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concur.