Acuzar v. Jorolan

G.R. No. 177878 · 2010-04-07 · J. VILLARAMA, JR., J.: · Primary: Ethics; Secondary: Remedial
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Respondent Aproniano Jorolan filed an administrative case 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. Concurrently, a criminal case for Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (Child Abuse Act) was filed against Acuzar. Procedural History: The PLEB denied Acuzar's motion to suspend proceedings pending resolution of the criminal case and proceeded to hear the administrative case. Despite Acuzar's motions for reconsideration and alleged walkout during a hearing, the PLEB found Acuzar guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. Acuzar filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging denial of due process and lack of jurisdiction by the PLEB due to the absence of a prior criminal conviction. The RTC annulled the PLEB's decision, finding that Acuzar was not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, holding that certiorari was not the proper remedy as an appeal was available and the issues involved questions of fact and law. The CA also found that Acuzar failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Petition: Petitioner SPO1 Leonito Acuzar assails the CA's decision, arguing that certiorari was the proper remedy and that he was denied due process by the PLEB.

Issue(s)

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Certiorari was not a proper remedy to assail the Decision of the PLEB, considering the availability of appeal and the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Whether the Petitioner was denied due process before the PLEB, considering the notice, opportunity to be heard, and the use of affidavits as evidence.

Ruling

The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 23, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77110 is AFFIRMED.

Ratio Decidendi

On the propriety of Certiorari and exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy. The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action of certiorari. Section 43(e) of Republic Act No. 6975 explicitly provides for an appeal from the PLEB's decision to the regional appellate board. Since an appeal was available, resort to certiorari was improper. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that all administrative processes must be availed of before seeking judicial intervention. Petitioner failed to demonstrate any ground to warrant immediate resort to certiorari in lieu of appeal. The bare allegation that appeal might not be adequate does not justify immediate resort to certiorari. On the alleged denial of due process: The Court found no denial of due process. The records showed that petitioner was notified of the complaint, submitted his counter-affidavit and affidavits of witnesses, and attended hearings with his counsel, even seeking several postponements. The PLEB's summary of proceedings indicated multiple hearings were set, and while petitioner's counsel filed motions for postponement, the PLEB continued to hear the case based on available affidavits when the petitioner walked out. Procedural due process in administrative proceedings requires notice and a real opportunity to be heard, which petitioner was afforded. The fact that the PLEB's decision was based on affidavits and documentary evidence, without a full trial-type hearing, does not violate due process, as affidavits can take the place of direct testimony in administrative cases.

Main Doctrine

The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action of certiorari. Furthermore, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that a party must have availed of the means of administrative processes afforded to him before seeking judicial intervention, unless an exception applies.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →