7/28/2019 Cano vs. Chief of PNP, GR 139368, November 21, 2002 Case Digest

1/1

Cano vs. Chief of PNP, GR 139368, November 21, 2002

Facts:For the alleged bungled investigation of the Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez rape-slay, a complaint for gravemisconduct was filed with NAPOLCOM under DILG against petitioner-Robin M. Cano, then Police Chief Inspector of theCalauan Police Station. The Chief of PNP found petitioner guilty and ordered his summary dismissal from the service, in adecision dated July 12, 1995. Petitioner appealed his dismissal to the National Appellate Board of NAPOLCOM. On May15, 1997, the NAPOLCOM reversed the decision of the PNP Chief. NAPOLCOM only found Cano guilty of SimpleMisconduct and ordered 3 months suspension which he already had served.

Petitioner was restored to full duty status effective May 15, 1997. Petitioner filed a claim for payment of back salaries andother allowances corresponding to the period he was allegedly unjustly discharged from service until he was restored tofull duty status, or from August 7, 1995 to May 15, 1997. However, this claim, computed by the PNP Regional PoliceComptrollership and Finance Division to be P301,018.00, was denied by respondent Police Director Edgar C. Galvante ofthe PNP Directorate for Personnel and Records Management (DPRM) on the strength of a Memorandum/Opinion fromthe PNP Legal Service. MR denied.

Petitioner filed on December 23, 1998 a complaint before the RTC for the recovery of his back salaries and otherallowances. The court a quo dismissed the complaint in an order dated May 17, 1999. Said the trial court: plaintiff has notshown any clear and legal right which would entitle him to back salaries, allowances and other benefits and besides,plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies not discounting the fact that his claim against defendants is actuallya suit against the state which cannot be sued without its consent. MR denied.

Petitioner filed the instant appeal via petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: - WON petitioner is entitled to back salaries and other allowances upon the reduction of his penalty of dismissal tomere suspension for 3 months.

- WON whether petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies(a mixed qu est ion of fact and law)

Ruling:

THE COURT WAS CONSTRAINED TO DECLINE EXERCISE JURISDICTION OF THE CASE.

There is a question of fact when doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts, and there is aquestion of law where the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.

The determination of petitioner's entitlement to said back salaries and allowances is a mixed question as it involves thedetermination of his duty status for the period of his claim and the resolution of whether the petitioner was acquitted by theNAPOLCOM Appellate Board in its decision finding him liable only for simple misconduct, not gross misconduct.

Under Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, an appeal by certiorari to this Court should raise only questions of lawwhich must be distinctly set forth in the petition. It is elementary that a review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicialdiscretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. As the error raised hereinincludes one of fact and law, and not a proper subject for a petition for review on certiorari, we are constrained to declineexercise of our equity jurisdiction in this case.

At any rate, petitioner also failed without justifiable cause to observe due regard for the hierarchy of courts. Even on thisreason alone, petition was denied.