SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243238. January 16, 2019.]
PO2 WARLITO E. BANAN, JR., petitioner,vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243238 (PO2 Warlito E. Banan, Jr. v. Philippine National Police)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the July 31, 2018 Decision 2 and the October 25, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151099 for failure of petitioner PO2 Warlito E. Banan, Jr. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the findings of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), 4 which, in turn, affirmed the findings of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), 5 National Police Commission-National Appellate Board (NAPOLCOM-NAB), 6 and the Philippine National Police (PNP), 7 holding petitioner guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty for his willful inaction despite knowledge of violations of Republic Act No. 9165, 8 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," and ordering his dismissal from the police service with the attendant accessory penalties.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the hearing conducted by the PNP Summary Hearing Board is not subject to the technical rules of evidence. 9 Generally, technical rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings. 10 Nevertheless, in deciding disciplinary cases, administrative bodies must still adhere to the fundamental requirements of due process — which is simply an opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling. 11 In this case, petitioner was undoubtedly given an opportunity to be heard through the Answer 12 he filed before the PNP Summary Hearing Board. It is of no moment that Dante Palaganas y Toquero (Palaganas) was not presented, and that petitioner was unable to cross-examine him, considering that the NAPOLCOM-NAB's own rules do not require the same, given the summary nature of the proceedings. 13 Clearly, there were no irregularities in the administrative proceedings to speak of. The CA also did not err in holding that the findings of the administrative bodies have passed the test of substantiality. 14 Substantial evidence constitutes such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise. 15 Here, the Sworn Statement 16 of Palaganas unequivocally shows petitioner's gross neglect of duty in his failure to act on vital information reported to him about the maintenance of a drug laboratory. 17 Settled is the rule that factual findings of the lower courts are beyond the Court's review, save for exceptional circumstances, 18 especially in the present case where there is unanimous concurrence by the administrative bodies whose findings are not only accorded great respect but even finality. 19
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-22.
2.Id. at 29-40-A. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz with Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza and Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.
3.Id. at 42-43.
4. Dated May 12, 2017. Id. at 89-97. Signed by Chairperson Alicia dela Rosa-Bala and Commissioner Robert S. Martinez.
5. Dated May 17, 2016. Id. at 78-88. Signed by Secretary Mel Senen S. Sarmiento.
6. See rollo, pp. 33 and 78-79.
7. Dated June 19, 2013. Rollo, pp. 67-75. Signed by Police Director General Alan La Madrid Purisima. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
9. See rollo, p. 40.
10. See Magcamit v. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, 779 Phil. 43, 51 (2016).
11. See id. at 52.
12. Not attached to the rollo.
13. See Section 7, Rule 17 of NAPOLCOM Circular No. 2007-001, otherwise known as "UNIFORM RULES OF PROCEDURE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITIES AND THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE," issued on March 6, 2007.
14. See rollo, p. 35.
15.Gamboa, Jr. v. Villegas, 743 Phil. 530, 538 (2014).
16.Rollo, pp. 46-52. See also Palaganas' Karagdagang Salaysay, id. at 53-58.
17. See id. at 36-37.
18. See Spouses Aboitiz v. Spouses Po, G.R. Nos. 208450 and 208497, June 5, 2017, 825 SCRA 457, 499.
19. See Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. v. Heirs of Ganal, G.R. No. 220168, June 7, 2017, 827 SCRA, 72, 80.