Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 303 views

    CABADA Vs ALUNAN

    Uploaded by

    Julio
    Two police officers, Cabada and De Guzman, appealed their dismissal from service to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). However, NAPOLCOM Commissioner Alexis Canonizado denied their appeal, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that NAPOLCOM did not have authority to deny the appeal, as the DILG Act of 1990 only grants NAPOLCOM appellate jurisdiction through the National Appellate Board and Regional Appellate Boards. As the officers addressed their appeals to the Secretary of the DILG, as provided by law, only the Secretary had authority to act on the appeals. NAPOLCOM itself did not have jurisdiction over appeals from the RAB's decisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CABADA Vs ALUNAN

    Uploaded by

    Julio
    303 views1 page
    Two police officers, Cabada and De Guzman, appealed their dismissal from service to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). However, NAPOLCOM Commissioner Alexis Canonizado denied their appeal, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that NAPOLCOM did not have authority to deny the appeal, as the DILG Act of 1990 only grants NAPOLCOM appellate jurisdiction through the National Appellate Board and Regional Appellate Boards. As the officers addressed their appeals to the Secretary of the DILG, as provided by law, only the Secretary had authority to act on the appeals. NAPOLCOM itself did not have jurisdiction over appeals from the RAB's decisions.

    Original Title

    CABADA vs ALUNAN

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Two police officers, Cabada and De Guzman, appealed their dismissal from service to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). However, NAPOLCOM Commissioner Alexis Canonizado denied their appeal, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that NAPOLCOM did not have authority to deny the appeal, as the DILG Act of 1990 only grants NAPOLCOM appellate jurisdiction through the National Appellate Board and Regional Appellate Boards. As the officers addressed their appeals to the Secretary of the DILG, as provided by law, only the Secretary had authority to act on the appeals. NAPOLCOM itself did not have jurisdiction over appeals from the RAB's decisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    303 views1 page

    CABADA Vs ALUNAN

    Uploaded by

    Julio
    Two police officers, Cabada and De Guzman, appealed their dismissal from service to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). However, NAPOLCOM Commissioner Alexis Canonizado denied their appeal, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that NAPOLCOM did not have authority to deny the appeal, as the DILG Act of 1990 only grants NAPOLCOM appellate jurisdiction through the National Appellate Board and Regional Appellate Boards. As the officers addressed their appeals to the Secretary of the DILG, as provided by law, only the Secretary had authority to act on the appeals. NAPOLCOM itself did not have jurisdiction over appeals from the RAB's decisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SPO3 CABADA and SPO3 DE GUZMAN vs. HON.

    ALUNAN jurisdiction because Section 14 of the DILG Act of 1990


    G.R. No. 119645, AUGUST 22, 1996 pertinently provides as follows:

    FACTS: Sec. 14. Powers and Functions of the Commission. — . . .

    A complaint for Grave Misconduct, Arbitrary Detention, and xxx xxx xxx
    Dishonesty was filed with the Office of the CHR in Tacloban
    City by Mario Valdez. The Complaint was referred to in the (i) Affirm, reverse or modify, through the National
    PNP Regional Office which, after conducting its own Appellate Board, personnel disciplinary action involving
    investigation, filed an administrative charge of Grave demotion or dismissal from the service imposed upon
    Misconduct against petitioners and instituted summary members of the Philippine National Police by the Chief of the
    dismissal proceedings. Philippine National Police;

    Petitioners claimed that they were not formally furnished (k) Exercise appellate jurisdiction through the regional
    with a copy of the decision and that they were able to secure appellate boards over administrative cases against policemen
    a copy thereof only through their own effort and initiative and over decisions on claims for police benefits. . . .
    only. Further, Cabada insisted that he filed with the DILG a
    motion for reconsideration, but the latter failed or refused to This section clearly shows that the NAPOLCOM exercise
    act on the said motion. appellate jurisdiction only on the following cases and
    THROUGH (a) the NAB in personnel disciplinary actions
    The Regional Appellate Board affirmed their dismissal. When involving demotion or dismissal from the service imposed by
    petitioners filed their appeal with the NAPOLCOM Chairman, the Chief of the PNP, and (b) the RAB in administrative cases
    Commissioner Alexis Canonizado denied the appeal on the against policemen and over decisions on claims for police
    ground that the same had long become final and executory. benefits. It has no appellate jurisdiction over decisions
    rendered by the NAB and the RAB.
    ISSUE:
    Consequently, the NAPOLCOM did not have the power or
    Whether or not the NAPOLCOM had authority to act issue the authority to issue, through Commissioner Alexis Canonizado,
    decision in denying due course to petitioners’ appeal. the 24 March 1995 decision denying due course to the appeal
    and petition for review filed by petitioners Cabada and De
    RULING: Guzman, respectively, for lack of jurisdiction because of
    Section 5, Rule III of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No.
    NO. If the RAB fails to decide an appealed case within sixty 91-006 and Section 23, Rule IV of NAPOLCOM Memorandum
    days from receipt of the notice of appeal, the appealed Circular No. 91-002. The reference to these rules suggest that
    decision is deemed final and executory, and the aggrieved the NAPOLCOM believes it has jurisdiction over appeals from
    party may forthwith appeal therefrom to the Secretary of the decisions of the RAB if the latter has not decided the appeal
    DILG. Likewise, if the RAB has decided the appeal within the within the reglementary period of sixty days.
    sixty-day period, its decision may still be appealed to the
    Secretary of the DILG. Such a suggestion is flawed because it would allow a
    ridiculous situation where the NAPOLCOM vests upon itself
    In the instant case, Cabada's appeal was addressed to "the an appellate jurisdiction from a decision rendered by it in the
    Honorable Secretary of the Department of the Interior and exercise of its appellate jurisdiction through the RAB, per
    Local Government . . . as Chairman and Presiding Officer of Section 14(k) of the DILG Act of 1990. Moreover,
    the National Police Commission," while De Guzman's petition Commissioner Canonizado cannot, singly, act for the
    for review was addressed to "the Honorable Secretary, NAPOLCOM because it is a collegial body composed of a
    Department of the Interior and Local Government and Chairman and four Commissioners, pursuant to Section 13 of
    Chairman, National Police Commission, Makati City, Metro the DILG Act of 1990.
    Manila."

    The SC considered the appeal and the petition for review as


    appeals to the Secretary of the DILG under Section 45 of the
    DILG Act of 1990.

    Only the Secretary of the DILG can act thereon, one way or
    the other. The NAPOLCOM did not have authority over the
    appeal and the petition for review, and just because both
    mentioned the Secretary of the DILG as Chairman or Presiding
    Officer of the NAPOLCOM did not bring them within the
    jurisdiction of the NAPOLCOM. The latter does not have such

    You might also like