Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL APPELLATE BOARD v. P & INSP. JOHN A. MAMAUAG

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 185954 2010-02-16	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MAXIMO D. SISON VELASCO JR., J.
And third, Garcia should be read along with Mathay, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[15] and National Appellate Board of the National Police Commission v. Mamauag (Mamauag),[16] in which this Court qualified and clarified the exercise of the right of a government agency to actively participate in the appeal of decisions in administrative cases. In Mamauag, this Court ruled: RA 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Sections 43 and 45 of RA 6975 authorize `either party' to appeal in the instances that the law allows appeal. One party is the PNP member-respondent when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service. The other party is the government when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion but the government believes that dismissal from the service is the proper penalty.
	GR No. 180146 2008-12-18	PO2 RUEL C. MONTOYA v. POLICE DIRECTOR REYNALDO P. VARILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Civil Service Commission and held respondent not guilty of nepotism. Who now may appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court? Certainly not the respondent, who was declared not guilty of the charge. Nor the complainant George P. Suan, who was merely a witness for the government. Consequently, the Civil Service Commission has become the party adversely affected by such ruling, which seriously prejudices the civil service system. Hence, as an aggrieved party, it may appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. By this ruling, we now expressly abandon and overrule extant jurisprudence that "the phrase `party adversely affected by the decision' refers to the government employee against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office" and not included are "cases where the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days salary" or "when the respondent is exonerated of the charges, there is no occasion for appeal." In other words, we overrule prior decisions holding that the Civil Service Law "does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from administrative charges" enunciated in Paredes v. Civil Service Commission; Mendez v. Civil Service Commission; Magpale v. Civil Service Commission; Navarro v. Civil Service Commission and Export Processing Zone Authority and more recently Del Castillo v. Civil Service Commission.[25] (Emphasis ours.) Subsequently, the Court qualified its declarations in Dacoycoy. In National Appellate Board of the National Police Commission v. Mamauag,[26] citing Mathay, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[27] this Court elucidated that:RA 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Sections 43 and 45 of RA 6975 authorize "either party" to appeal in the instances that the law allows appeal. One party is the PNP member-respondent when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service. The other party is the government when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion but the government believes that dismissal from the services is the proper penalty.
	GR No. 178923 2008-11-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO L. MAGNO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, the reason for disallowing the disciplining authority from appealing the reversal of its decision, as decided in National Appellate Board of the National Police Commission v. Mamauag,[34] citing Mathay, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[35] is also true for precluding said disciplining authority from intervening in the appeal of its decision, to wit:RA 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Sections 43 and 45 of RA 6975 authorize "either party" to appeal in the instances that the law allows appeal. One party is the PNP member-respondent when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service. The other party is the government when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion but the government believes that dismissal from the service is the proper penalty.
	GR NO. 153624 2008-10-24	JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES v. P & INSP. JOHN A. MAMAUAG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
At the outset, the Court notes that the issues raised by petitioner had already been settled by the Court in a kindred case, The National Appellate Board (NAB) of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) v. P/ INSP John A. Mamauag, et al.[10] docketed as G.R. No. 149999. In the said case, the Court through its First Division ruled that RA 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Explains the Court in said decision:RA 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Sections 43 and 45 of RA 6975 authorize "either party" to appeal in the instances that the law allows appeal. One party is the PNP member-respondent when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service. The other party is the government when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion but the government believes that dismissal from the service is the proper penalty.
	GR NO. 153624 2008-10-24	JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES v. P & INSP. JOHN A. MAMAUAG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
At the outset, the Court notes that the issues raised by petitioner had already been settled by the Court in a kindred case, The National Appellate Board (NAB) of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) v. P/ INSP John A. Mamauag, et al.[10] docketed as G.R. No. 149999. In the said case, the Court through its First Division ruled that RA 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Explains the Court in said decision:RA 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Sections 43 and 45 of RA 6975 authorize "either party" to appeal in the instances that the law allows appeal. One party is the PNP member-respondent when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service. The other party is the government when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion but the government believes that dismissal from the service is the proper penalty.
	GR No. 169982 2007-11-23	SALVADOR A. PLEYTO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
And third, Dacoycoy and Garcia should be read together with Mathay, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[28] and National Appellate Board of the National Police Commission v. Mamauag,[29] in which this Court qualified and clarified the exercise of the right of a government agency to actively participate in the appeal of decisions in administrative cases. In Mamauag, this Court ruled: RA 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Sections 43 and 45 of RA 6975 authorize "either party" to appeal in the instances that the law allows appeal. One party is the PNP member-respondent when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service. The other party is the government when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion but the government believes that dismissal from the service is the proper penalty.