Marquez v. Mayo
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the dismissal of Police Officer 2 (PO2) Arnold P. Mayo from the Philippine National Police (PNP) for grave misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from an incident on January 25, 2012, where PO2 Mayo, along with other police officers, attempted to dismantle a bomb. During this attempt, the bomb exploded, resulting in the death of one civilian and one police officer, and injuring nine other civilians. Several police officers were also injured, and property was damaged. PO2 Mayo failed to file an answer or counter-affidavit to the complaint filed against him. Procedural History: Following the incident, the Chief of the PNP found PO2 Mayo guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed him from service via a Decision dated October 11, 2013. PO2 Mayo's motion for reconsideration, which argued denial of due process and lack of jurisdiction, was denied on November 26, 2014. He then appealed to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) National Appellate Board on January 27, 2015. Despite the pending appeal, the PNP issued Special Order (S.O.) No. 9999 on December 29, 2014, dismissing PO2 Mayo effective October 11, 2013. PO2 Mayo learned of this dismissal on January 30, 2015, and subsequently filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 32, arguing that the dismissal order was void as his appeal was pending and that the filing of an appeal should stay the execution of the disciplinary action. The RTC granted the injunction, declaring S.O. No. 9999 void. The Petition: The PNP, through Police Director General Ricardo C. Marquez, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the RTC's decision. The PNP argued that the RTC erred in declaring S.O. No. 9999 void, contending that Section 45 of R.A. No. 6975 does not state that failure of the National Appellate Board to act within 60 days renders the decision final and executory, that NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 2007-001 clearly states only a motion for reconsideration stays execution, and that a PNP circular allowed execution pending appeal. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the dismissal order against PO2 Mayo was immediately executory despite his pending appeal with the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board. The Court also noted that subsequent events, including the dismissal of PO2 Mayo's appeal by the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, rendered the dismissal executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty of dismissal from the service against a police officer imposed by the Chief of the PNP is immediately executory, even when an appeal has been seasonably filed. Whether Special Order (S.O.) No. 9999, dismissing PO2 Arnold P. Mayo from the service, is void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32 of the City of Manila, and dissolved the writ of injunction it issued.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the penalty of dismissal from the service against a police officer imposed by the Chief of the PNP is immediately executory, even when an appeal has been seasonably filed: The Supreme Court held that the Decision and Resolution of the Chief of the PNP are not immediately executory pending the respondent's appeal before the National Appellate Board (NAB). Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975, as amended, provides that while disciplinary actions are generally final and executory, those involving demotion or dismissal imposed by the Chief of the PNP may be appealed to the NAB. The Court clarified that the proviso in Section 45 regarding the failure of the Regional Appellate Board to act on an appeal within sixty days does not apply to appeals before the NAB. Furthermore, while NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular (M.C.) No. 2007-001, Section 23, states that the filing of a motion for reconsideration shall stay the execution, this provision does not foreclose other modes of staying execution. The Court also noted that the previous NAPOLCOM M.C. No. 92-006, which provided for the immediate executory nature of summary dismissals, was repealed and not carried over in subsequent issuances like NAPOLCOM M.C. No. 2007-001 and NAPOLCOM M.C. No. 2016-002. Therefore, the filing of a timely appeal with the NAB renders the decision of the Chief of the PNP not immediately executory. On the issue of whether Special Order (S.O.) No. 9999, dismissing PO2 Arnold P. Mayo from the service, is void: The Supreme Court found that S.O. No. 9999 was issued prematurely. Since PO2 Mayo had filed a timely appeal with the NAB, the decision of the Chief of the PNP was not yet final and executory. The RTC correctly declared S.O. No. 9999 void for being issued while an appeal was pending. However, the Supreme Court reversed the RTC's decision based on supervening events. The Office of the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) had dismissed PO2 Mayo's appeal, affirming his dismissal from the service. This dismissal, being executory pursuant to Section 47 of Book V, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), meant that the injunction issued by the RTC was no longer tenable. Thus, while the RTC's initial reasoning that the appeal stayed execution was correct, the subsequent unfavorable resolution of the appeal rendered the dismissal executory, leading to the reversal of the injunction.
Main Doctrine
A disciplinary action imposed by the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) involving dismissal from the service is not immediately executory when a timely appeal has been filed with the National Appellate Board (NAB).