PSSUPT AMADOR HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. MARY ANNE DELGADO, RESPONDENT.

Hernandez versus Delgado

The Case

This is the case of Hernandez versus Delgado, a petition for review on certiorari brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by a police senior superintendent against the private complainant who accused him of extortion at the airport. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the administrative findings of the National Police Commission and the Office of the President holding him liable for grave misconduct and dismissing him from the service. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the procedural limits of a Rule 45 petition against administrative findings, the definition of grave misconduct and its element of corruption, the substantial evidence standard in administrative proceedings, and the rule that neither a first offense nor a long record of good service mitigates the penalty of dismissal.

Procedural History

Mary Anne Delgado filed an administrative complaint with the National Police Commission, alleging grave misconduct for extortion. The National Police Commission found Police Senior Superintendent Amador Hernandez and Eulogio Lovello Fabro culpable of grave misconduct and imposed the maximum penalty of dismissal from the service. Hernandez appealed to the Office of the President, which denied the appeal and affirmed the penalty of dismissal with all accessory penalties. Hernandez then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and affirmed the findings of the Office of the President and the National Police Commission. His motion for reconsideration was denied for reiterating arguments already passed upon. Hernandez then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

On October 3, 2011, aviation security personnel at the Diosdado Macapagal International Airport found Philippine currency in excess of 10,000 pesos inside Delgado's luggage. She was escorted to the office of the airport security station chief, where Fabro and Hernandez spoke to her about her violation of a banking circular limiting the amount of Philippine currency that may be taken outside the country.

According to Delgado, the two threatened to bring her to the customs authorities, which would delay her boarding and result in the confiscation of her money. When she asked what she could do, Hernandez replied, "Kung ano maluwag sa iyo." She then offered 1,000 pesos for her release, which the two laughed at. After negotiation, they agreed that she would pay 5,000 pesos for the authorities to release her. Hernandez then made copies of her passport and made her sign the dorsal side of the copies in blank.

Delgado later filed the administrative complaint. Hernandez denied the extortion, claiming that he refused her offer but, out of humanitarian considerations, released her with a warning after she signed a waiver. He argued that receiving only 5,000 pesos was inconsistent with human nature, since he could have kept the entire excess amount, and that the complaint was retaliation for her embarrassment. The administrative tribunals gave more weight to Delgado's testimony, found no ill motive for her complaint, and noted that Hernandez failed to document his investigation of her supposed violation.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the administrative tribunals' finding that Hernandez is liable for grave misconduct deserving of dismissal from the service and its accessory penalties.
• Whether or not the petition was the proper remedy and raised questions of substance reviewable under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the doctrine of conclusiveness of administrative findings of fact applies to the findings against Hernandez.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal may be mitigated by Hernandez's track record and by this being his first offense.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 45, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision through the case of Kumar versus People, defines when review is warranted:

(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or (b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.

This provision bears on the case because the Court used it to measure whether the petition raised reasons of distinctly significant consequence and value, and found that it did not.

Item C.3(e), Section 2, Rule 21 of National Police Commission Memorandum Order Number 2007-001, as cited by the Office of the President, classifies the offense:

Grave misconduct under Item C.3(e), Section 2, Rule 21 of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Order No. 2007-001.

This provision bears on the case because it is the specific rule under which Hernandez's act of extortion was characterized as grave misconduct.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denied the petition and held that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in finding Hernandez administratively liable for grave misconduct. The Court defined the offense through the case of Besmonte versus National Police Commission:

In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest. Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his or her station or character to procure some benefit for himself/herself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

The Court found that conditioning Delgado's release from custody on the payment of money was irregular and blatantly unlawful, and that Hernandez's unlawful behavior was attended by corrupt intent in using his public office to procure monetary benefit. Even setting aside the testimonies, his failure to comply with standard procedures for handling the incident, and the absence of any record other than a waiver executed in anticipation of the repercussions of the extortion, convinced the Court that the totality of circumstances established the unlawful act.

On the procedural issue, the Court held that the petition invoked the wrong basis for review. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and Hernandez failed to establish it. The Court of Appeals had conducted its own review of the evidence, negating the claim that it relied solely on the administrative findings. The petition merely questioned the assessment of evidence, raising no novel legal question and no significant departure from accepted judicial proceedings.

On the third issue, the Court applied the doctrine of conclusiveness of administrative findings of fact, quoting Navotas Industrial Corporation versus Guanzon:

Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of administrative findings of fact, factual findings of quasi-judicial and administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts.

The Court also recalled Miro versus Dosono, which teaches that administrative liability attaches so long as there is some evidence adequate to support the conclusion that the acts constitutive of the administrative offense have been performed, and that reasonable doubt does not ipso facto result in exoneration.

On the penalty, the Court refused to modify the dismissal despite Hernandez's track record and this being his first offense. Quoting Office of the Ombudsman versus Regalado:

Grave misconduct is not a question of frequency, but, as its own name suggests, of gravity or weight. One who commits grave misconduct is one who, by the mere fact of that misconduct, has proven himself or herself unworthy of the continuing confidence of the public.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. Grave misconduct requires that the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule be manifest, and corruption consists in the unlawful use of one's station to procure a benefit contrary to duty and the rights of others. Administrative liability is measured by substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and reasonable doubt does not automatically exonerate the respondent as it would in a criminal case. Factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial bodies supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and even finality, absent a clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness. A Rule 45 petition must raise questions of substance of special and important reasons, and a claim of grave abuse of discretion belongs to a petition for certiorari. Finally, the penalty of dismissal for grave misconduct is not mitigated by a first offense or by a long record of good service.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal of Hernandez from the public service with all accessory penalties.

Remember This

Memorize the line that grave misconduct is not a question of frequency but of gravity or weight, so that a first offense and a clean record do not save a corrupt public officer from dismissal. Examiners use this case to test the substantial evidence standard in administrative proceedings, the finality of administrative findings, and the proper scope of a Rule 45 petition against a claim of grave abuse of discretion.