G.R. No. 250804 , February 25, 2025
PMAJ ALFRED C. ARTURO, PETITIONER, vs. PGEN OSCAR D. ALBAYALDE AND PGEN RONALD M. DELA ROSA (BOTH IN THEIR FORMER CAPACITIES AS THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Police Major Alfred C. Arturo was administratively charged with two counts of Less Grave Neglect of Duty for failing to attend a scheduled rehearsal and to comply with his duties as a parading element for a PNP anniversary event in January 2016. On October 27, 2017, then PNP Chief Ronald Dela Rosa found him guilty of the first charge (failure to attend the rehearsal) and imposed a penalty of 50 days suspension, but exonerated him on the second charge for lack of evidence. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Instead of appealing to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition outright, ruling it was the wrong remedy as the proper recourse for a penalty exceeding 30 days suspension was an appeal to the CSC under Section 61 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS). The CA also noted petitioner filed the certiorari petition after the period to appeal to the CSC had lapsed. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that under Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975 (the DILG Act of 1990), disciplinary actions by the PNP Chief are final and executory, and only penalties of demotion or dismissal may be appealed to the National Appellate Board. He contended that RA 6975, being a later special law, repealed the general provisions on appeal in the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s special civil action for certiorari on the ground that the proper remedy to assail the PNP Chief’s decision imposing a 50-day suspension was an appeal to the Civil Service Commission, and not a petition for certiorari.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The Court held that the proper remedy from a decision of the PNP Chief imposing a penalty exceeding 30 days suspension is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission, not a special civil action for certiorari. The provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292) and the DILG Act of 1990 (RA 6975) on disciplinary appeals are not irreconcilably conflicting and can be harmonized. Section 45 of RA 6975 states that disciplinary actions by the PNP Chief are “final and executory” and that appeals from decisions involving demotion or dismissal may be made to the National Appellate Board. This does not, however, preclude the application of the general rule under the Administrative Code, specifically Section 47 of Book V, Title I(A), which provides that decisions of department heads imposing a penalty exceeding 30 days suspension are appealable to the CSC. The Court applied the rule on statutory construction that a special law does not automatically repeal a general law unless there is an irreconcilable conflict. Here, RA 6975 is silent on the appealability of penalties other than demotion or dismissal (like suspension). This silence creates no conflict with the Administrative Code’s provision, which specifically governs such penalties. Therefore, the general rule under the Administrative Code applies, making the CSC the proper appellate body. Since petitioner failed to exhaust this available administrative remedy by appealing to the CSC, his petition for certiorari before the CA was correctly dismissed. The Court also noted that the legislative history of RA 6975 indicates an intent to maintain the applicability of civil service laws to the PNP.