[G.R. NO.
154243 : December 22, 2007] without propounding further questions to complainant's witnesses, or calling
DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL ROBERTO LASTIMOSO, ACTING CHIEF
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP), DIRECTORATE FOR
PERSONNEL AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT (DPRM), INSPECTOR
GENERAL, P/CHIEF SUPT. RAMSEY OCAMPO and P/SUPT. ELMER
REJANO,Petitioners, v. P/SENIOR INSPECTOR JOSE J. ASAYO,
Respondent.
FACTS:
In 1997, Delia Buño, a private citizen filed with the Office of the
Inspector General of the Philippine National Police (PNP) an administrative
complaint for harassment/abuse of authority against herein respondent. The
PNP Legal Service conducted the summary hearing and in January 22,
1999, herein petitioner PNP Chief Lastimoso rendered decision on the
dismissal from police service of the respondent.
Respondent commenced an action for certiorari and prohibition at
the RTC. In August 27, 1999, the RTC annulled the January 22, 2019
decision of herein petitioner for having been rendered with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In August 17, 2001, the CA nullified the RTC decision and ruled that
the PNP Chief had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the civilian against
the respondent and that respondent’s failure to exhaust the administrative
remedy of filing an appeal with the National Appellate Board was fatal to his
cause.
In August 8, 2002, CA reversed its decision and ruled that since the
offense charged against respondent was punishable by dismissal, the
People’s Law Enforcement Board has jurisdiction. It further ruled that the
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply to the case
since the issue involved is purely legal in nature and the RTC’s decision was
affirmed.
In March 6, 2007, The Supreme Court has set aside the August 8,
2002 CA decision and reinstated the August 17, 2001 CA decision.
Hence, the present motion for consideration of the respondent
against this court’s decision. He asserts that the evidence presented in the
summary hearing does not prove his guilt of the charges against him.
Respondent insists that he was not accorded due process during the
summary hearing since the summary hearing officer did not conduct any
hearing at all but only relied on the affidavits and pleadings submitted to him,
in other witnesses.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not the respondent the respondent was accorded
due process considering no hearing was conducted in the
summary proceeding
II. Whether or not respondent failed to exhaust all administrative
remedies prior to the filing of the case in court
III. Whether or not the PNP Chief had jurisdiction to act on a private
citizen’s complaint against respondent
IV. Whether or not the evidence in the summary proceeding has
proved the guilt of the respondent on the charges filed against
him
RULING:
1. NO. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-
type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. A formal or trial-
type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The
requirements of due process are satisfied where the parties are
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy at hand. It is not legally objectionable for being violative
of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based
solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence
submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the
place of their direct testimony.
2. NO. One exception on the principle of exhaustion of remedies is
when the issue involved is a purely legal question. Since the issue
presented by the respondent before the RTC was whether or not the
PNP Chief had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed
by a civilian against him is a purely legal question, the principle of
exhaustion of remedies does not apply in this case. He rightfully
invoked the jurisdiction of the courts without first going through all the
administrative remedies.
In addition, it is also understandable why respondent immediately
resorted to the remedy of certiorari instead of pursuing his motion for
reconsideration of the PNP Chief's decision as an appeal before the
National Appellate Board (NAB). It was quite easy to get confused as
to which body had jurisdiction over his case. It was only in Quiambao
v. Court of Appeals, promulgated in 2005 or after respondent had
 already filed the Petition for Certiorari with the trial court, when the
Court resolved the issue of which body has jurisdiction over cases
that fall under both Sections 41 and 42 of R.A. No. 6975.

3. YES. The People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) and the PNP
Chief and regional directors have concurrent jurisdiction over
administrative cases filed against members of the PNP which may
warrant dismissal from service and fall under Sections 41 and 42 of
RA NO. 6975- Department of Interior and Local Government Code of
1990. However, once a complaint is filed with the PNP Chief or
regional directors, said authorities shall acquire exclusive original
jurisdiction over the case.

4. To resolve the fourth issue, respondent would have the Court re-
calibrate the weight of evidence presented before the summary
hearing officer, arguing that said evidence is insufficient to prove
respondent's guilt of the charges against him. . He may file an appeal
before the NAB, pursuant to Section 45, R.A. No. 6925.

It must be emphasized that the action commenced by respondent in

the RTC was one for certiorari. Yet, when the issue involved affects
the legal soundness of the decision, it is beyond the province of a
special civil action for certiorari. The general rule is that the filing of a
Petition for Certiorari does not toll the running of the period to
appeal. However, Section 1, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides
that the Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding. It is a settled jurisprudence that in
administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not strictly applied.

WHEREFORE, Respondent 's Motion for Reconsideration is partly

GRANTED. The Decision of the Court dated March 6, 2007 is
MODIFIED such that respondent is hereby allowed to file his appeal
with the National Appellate Board within ten (10) days from finality of
herein Resolution.SO ORDERED.