SPO1 ACUZAR vs JOROLAN and CA misconduct for engaging in an illicit affair with Jorolan’s
GR No. 117878; APRIL 7, 2010 minor daughter, he being a married man, and NOT FOR
FACTS:
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing
the March 23, 2007 CA decision reversing and setting aside the
RTC Decision
- October 15 2002 RTC Decision – annulled decision of
PLEB finding petitioner SPO1 Acuzar guilty of Grave
misconduct and ordering his dismissal from service
1. Jorolan filed an Administrative complaint against SPO1
Acuzar before the PLEB (peoples Law enforcement Board)
charging him of Grave Misconduct for allegedly having an
illicit relationship with Jorolan’s minor daughter.
2. Subsequently, Jorolan also instituted a criminal case against
SPO1 Acuzar before the MTC for violation of the Child
Abuse Act
3. Acuzar filed his counter-affidavit before PLEB denying all
acussations and attached affidavit of jorolan’s daughter in
support thereof.
4. He also filed a several motion to suspend proceedings
before the PLEB pending resolution of the criminal case
filed before the MTC, but PLEB denied
5. PLEB issued a decision finding him Guilty of misconduct
and with punishment of dismissal from service
6. Acuzar immediately filed a Petition for Certiorari with
prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and TRO with
the RTC
His contentions were:
a. He was not given an opportunity to be heard
b. PLEB acted without jurisdiction in proceeding without
petitioner having been first convicted in criminal case
before the MTC, pointing out that PLEB Rules of
procedure requires that prior conviction is required
before the board may act on the admin case
considering that the charge was actually for violation of
law, although denominated as one for grave
misconduct
7. RTC annulled the Decision of PLEB stating that Acuzar was
not given his day in court.
8. Jorolan elevated the case to CA and CA reversed and set
aside the RTC decision
CA’s decision:
Acuzar petition for certiorari was not the proper
remedy because there is an appeal available against the
decision and that the issues raised were not pure questions
of law but both of law and fact. Acuzar should have
appealed the decision of the PLEB to the regional appellate
board of the PNP before resorting to certiorari before the
court.
9. Acuzar filed a petition for review to SC contending that the
instant case falls under the exception to the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies, the decision being
patently illegal. And still maintains his previous argument as
to the prior conviction of MTC is needed and that he was
not given opportunity to be heard and his right to due
process has been violated.
ISSUE:
W/N the CA erred in reversing and setting aside the decision of
RTC
HELD:
NO.
1. A careful perusal of Jorolan’s affidavit-complaint against
Acuzar would show that petitioner was charged with grave
VIOLATION OF LAW.
Difference:
Misconduct- transgression of some established and definite
rule of actions, where no discretion is left expt what
necessity may demand; it does not necessarily imply
corruption or criminal intention but implies wrongful
intention and not to mere error of judgment
Violation of Law – presupposes final conviction in court of
any crime or offense penalized under the RPC or any special
law or ordinance.
SETTLED RULE :
Crim and admin cases are separate and distinct from each
other. In crim cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
needed while in admin, only substantial evidence is
required. Admin cases may proceed independently of the
crim proceeding
PLEB being the admin disciplinary body tasked to hear
complaints of erring PNP members, has jurisdiction over
the case.
2. The remedy of appeal from decision of PLEB to Regional
Appellate Board was available to and He likewise failed to
show any grave of abuse of discretion of the Board which
would justify his immediate resort to certiorari in lieu of
appeal. (Principle of Exhaustion of Admin remedies)
3. He was afforded all opportunity to present his side. Acuzar
was notified of the complaint and submitted his counter-
affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses. He attended the
hearings together with his counsel and even asked for
several postponements. Therefore, he cannot claim that he
had been denied of due process.
Rule:
Due process in administrative context does not require
trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice.
Due process is afforded either through oral arguments or
through pleadings.
ADMIN DUE PROCESS
(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of
proceedings which may affect a respondents legal rights;
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the
assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in
ones favor, and to defend ones rights;
(3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so
constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a
reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and
(4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial
evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or
contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.