EX-PO2 ALBERTO HUIT, PETITIONER, VS. JEFFREY SANCHO, RESPONDENT.

Huit versus Sancho

The Case

This is the case of Huit versus Sancho, a petition for review brought by a dismissed police officer against the private complainant who reported him. The petitioner, a former member of the Philippine National Police, was dismissed from the service for Grave Misconduct after he stopped a couple on a motorcycle and pointed his service firearm at them. He came to the Supreme Court insisting that he was denied due process and that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh. The case matters for two reasons: it is a compact lesson on the strict requirements of a petition for review under Rule 43, and it is a firm statement on what due process actually means in administrative proceedings, and on when the maximum penalty of dismissal may be imposed.

Procedural History

The complaint for Grave Misconduct was filed before the Camarines Sur Provincial Internal Affairs Service. The Regional Internal Affairs Service Number 5 rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty of all the offenses charged and meting upon him the penalty of dismissal from the police service. The petitioner appealed to the Internal Affairs Service at Camp Crame, which affirmed. The Chief of the Philippine National Police affirmed. The petitioner then appealed to the National Appellate Board of the National Police Commission, which found him guilty of Grave Misconduct and affirmed his dismissal. He appealed to the Department of the Interior and Local Government, which also affirmed his dismissal, and denied his motion for reconsideration. He then went up to the Civil Service Commission, which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Department's decision, adding the accessory penalties. It denied his motion for reconsideration. From that, he filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

On the afternoon of February 12, 2003, at around five o'clock, spouses Jeffrey and Margie Sancho were riding their motorcycle past the residence of the petitioner, who was then assigned to the Caramoan Municipal Police Station in Camarines Sur. The petitioner stopped them and pointed his service firearm, a forty-five caliber pistol, in their direction. Barangay Kagawad Sonny Sapian approached and pacified him. Because of his drunkenness, the petitioner fell to the ground, and Sapian took the firearm and eventually turned it over to a police officer of the Caramoan Police Station. Jeffrey Sancho reported the incident to the municipal police station and to the barangay office.

A complaint for Grave Misconduct was filed before the Camarines Sur Provincial Internal Affairs Service. The petitioner submitted an answer-affidavit claiming that he had fallen asleep at home, woke up to urinate, and went out near the road because someone was using the toilet, and that Sapian merely told him to put his firearm down. A charge sheet was issued, but despite due notice the petitioner failed to appear at the preliminary hearing and to present controverting evidence.

The Regional Internal Affairs Service Number 5 rendered its decision on March 9, 2004, finding him guilty and imposing dismissal. Every level of review affirmed, until the Civil Service Commission, on April 4, 2014, dismissed his appeal and affirmed the dismissal, adding the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, bar from taking civil service examinations, cancellation of eligibility, and forfeiture of retirement benefits except personal contributions. His motion for reconsideration was denied, so he went to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the petitioner was denied due process of law when he was dropped from the rolls.
• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission erred in imposing the penalty of dismissal and the accessory penalties.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 6. Contents of the petition. The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.

This provision fixes what a petition for review must contain and attach, and the petitioner failed to comply with it.

Section 7 of Rule 43 provides:

Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

This provision supplies the consequence of the petitioner's omissions, namely dismissal of the petition.

Section 10 of Rule 43 provides:

The findings of fact of the court or agency concerned, when supported by substantial evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals.

This provision anchors the respect accorded to the factual findings of the Civil Service Commission, which the Court found supported by substantial evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must be dismissed outright. The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process; it may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the law, and deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated. The petitioner failed to state the full name and address of the respondent, so the Court could not properly serve him with notices. He failed to attach the resolution denying his motion for reconsideration. And he failed to attach the material portions of the record referred to in his petition, such as the notice of complaint, his answer-affidavit, the charge sheet, and the decisions of the various reviewing bodies; only the assailed Civil Service Commission decision was appended. A petition lacking copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed under Section 7 of Rule 43, and the requirements of the Rules are not harmless and trivial technicalities.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no denial of due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The petitioner was duly notified of the complaint and even filed his answer-affidavit, but despite due notice he failed to appear at the preliminary hearing and to present controverting evidence. His claim that he was caring for his ailing grandmother was unsupported by credible proof. On his claim that he could not cross-examine the complainant's witnesses, the Court held that in administrative proceedings a formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied, so the right to cross-examine is not an indispensable aspect of administrative due process. In any event, he was afforded the opportunity to seek reconsideration at every level of appeal.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Civil Service Commission did not err. Only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required in administrative proceedings. The complainant presented witnesses who personally witnessed the incident, a barangay kagawad affirmed their testimonies, and a policeman confirmed that the petitioner was on duty. The petitioner impliedly admitted his intoxication in his own appeal, and admitted that he was not wearing his uniform. The Court noted that the petitioner's behavior in sowing fear upon the people he was supposed to protect showed him morally unworthy to remain a member of the police force. On the penalty, the Court held that under the applicable NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular, the maximum penalty shall be imposed where only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present, and the aggravating circumstances of using government property in the commission of the offense and committing the offense during office hours were obtaining. Grave misconduct carries the maximum penalty of dismissal, and dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for re-employment in the police service.

Doctrine

A petition for review under Rule 43 must strictly comply with the requirements of Section 6, and failure to comply with the contents and the documents that should accompany the petition is a sufficient ground for dismissal under Section 7. The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process.

The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary in administrative proceedings, and the right to cross-examine is not an indispensable aspect of administrative due process.

In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required, and the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded respect and even finality. Grave misconduct carries the maximum penalty of dismissal where aggravating circumstances are present, and dismissal carries the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for re-employment in the police service.

Disposition

The petition was denied due course and dismissed outright, so the petitioner lost and his dismissal from the service, with all its accessory penalties, stands.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the essence of due process is simply to be heard, and in administrative proceedings the right to cross-examine is not indispensable. Examiners like to use this case on the strict requirements of a Rule 43 petition and on administrative due process in police dismissal cases.