Você está na página 1de 9

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMEN OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT


DILG-NAPOLCOM Center, EDSA corner Quezon Ave., West Triangle, Quezon City

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, PRAB Case No.2017-015


Complainant-Appellee,

-versus-

PO1 Al-Musawer Jamu Gadjali FOR: Serious Neglect of Duty


Rizal PPO (AWOL)

Respondent-Appellant.
x-------------------------------x

FREFATORY STATEMENT

“The essence of due process is distilled in the immortal cry of

Themistocles to Eurybiades: "Strike, but hear me first!" Less dramatically, it

simply connotes an opportunity to be heard.”

MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL

COMES NOW, PO1 AL-Musawer Jamu Gadjali, the undersigned-


appellant, pro se, by way of APPEAL, most respectfully moves for this Honorable
Office for the setting-aside the RESOLUTION issued by PNP Regional Appellate
Board of Regional Office IV & IV-B (CALABARZON) affirming the DECISION of
issued by Regional Director of Police Regional Office CALABARZON in summary
dismissing PO1 Almuwaser Jamu Gadjali from the police service, on
the ground of Serious Neglect of Duty due to AWOL, humbly posits the following:

I.
STATEMENT AND NATURE OF THE CASE
The subject matter of this Memorandum on Appeal is the RESOLUTION
issued by PNP Regional Appellate Board CALABARZON (PRAB), affirming the
DECISION, dated April 13, 2016, of PRO CALABARZON Regional Director
PCSUPT RICHARD A ALBANO, as read:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Disciplinary


Authority finds respondent PO1 Al-Muwaser Jamu Gadjali
guilty of Serious Neglect of Duty (AWOL) and is meted the
penalty of dismissal from the police service pursuant to
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular 2007-001 and Section 53,
RA 8551.” The duplicate original copy of which are hereto
attached and respectively marked as Annex “A” and “A-1”;

Two-pages copy of Decision, dated 13 April 2016, issued by Regional


Director of POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE CALABARZON (PRO-CALABARZON),
Chief Superintendent RICHARD A ALBANO, finding herein respondent-
appellant was guilty of serious neglect of duty (through AWOL), and was
summary dismissed from the police service pursuant to NAPOLCOM
Memorandum Circular 2007-001 and Section 53, RA 8551.

A perusal of the assailed Decision states that twenty-five memoranda of


explanations were issued by PCINSP BARTOLOME O MARIGONDON, Acting
Chief of Police, Binangonan MPS directing herein appellant to explain in writing
the reasons for his absences.

It also alleges that respondent Gadjali refused to receive the same. Notice
to Return to Work Order (RTWO), dated July 6, 2015 and July 20, 2015 were
issued. Respondent only received the Notice to RTWO dated July 6, 2015.

On appeal, respondent-appellant denied that he refused to receive the


twenty five (25) memoranda issued by PCINSP MARIGONDON, as there was no
single copy of Memoranda of which was properly served to him.

Respondent-appellant also denies, at first, in his appeal memorandum that


he never received any of the copies of Notices to RTWO.
However, respondent-appellant’s appeal to PRAB was dismissed,
respondent-appellant filed forthwith a motion for reconsideration, where he
humbly admitted that he overlooked the copy he received was a copy of Notice to
RTWO interposing that he was not able to appreciate that the same was indeed
a Notice to RTWO.

Notwithstanding, he prays for reconsideration of the dismissal of his appeal


and his untarnished record of service other than the instant case be considered
by the PRAB to mitigate the meted penalty of dismissal from service.

In a Resolution dated October, 6, 2017, PRAB was also denied due course
the respondent-appellant’s motion.

II.
TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

Herein appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, on 29 September


2017, and the copy of the Resolution of which, denying the said motion, was
received on January 17, 2018, hence, this Notice of Appeal as well as the
Memorandum on Appeal is filed within the fifteen-day reglementary period to
perfect an appeal unto this Honorable Office, as per Section 2, Rule 20 of the
NAPOLCOM Revised Rules of Procedure (Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001).

III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Respondent-Appellant was assigned at Binangonan Municipal Police


Station (MPS), Rizal Police Provincial Office (PPO), since 2012 or, more or less,
three years, until his dismissal;

At the time, his wife and two minor children were staying in a small
apartment in Tandang Sora, Quezon City, while appellant was staying in at the
camp’s barracks of Binangonan MPS; from time to time, he was visiting his family
in Tandang Sora once, or twice, every month.

On the later part of June 2015, when he visited his family in Tandang Sora,
his wife and their minors were, suddenly, no longer in their house in Tandang
Sora. He learned that they went to his relative-in-laws in Mindanao, without any
idea what caused his family to leave their conjugal dwelling, as a result, the he
compelled to follow his wife in Mindanao, and tried to locate them while he was
staying at Camp Asturias, Jolo Sulu.

It took more than a month for him to find his wife and children in Mindanao
where he located them in her relatives in Zamboanga. He learned that his wife,
out of extreme jealous, left him when someone from their neighbors in Tandang
Sora spreading malicious information against him that he was maintaining a
paramour in Binangonan where he was assigned. However, respondent-
appellant and his wife were able to rekindle their relationship but unable to return
in Manila for insufficient money to defray their travel expenses.

As such, he sought the assistance of a friend who was residing in


Binangonan to inform immediately his unit about his situation, but to his
surprise, he learned that he was summarily discharged from the service.

At the time, he was financially constrained as his remaining money was not
sufficient and only available for food and basic expenses for his family, thus, he
suffered serious anxiety and depression.

With the help of a friend, whom he designated to follow-up his case, he


was able to secure a copy of the discharged order and the same was sent to him
through a courier service which respondent-appellant received only this early part
of March 2017.

He just borrowed money to his friend who was here in Binangonan Rizal
for his travel expenses from Zamboanga to Manila and, on 13 June 2017, he
proceeded to PRO CALABARZON where he secured a copy of the Decision
rendered by Regional Director dated April 13, 2016.

To clarify, the copy of Notice to RTWO, dated July 6, 2015, was in fact
received only in June 13, 2017, and not on the date as reflects in the said
notice.

IV.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR AND/OR ISSUES

I.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE PRAB 4 & 4B
COMMITTED ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF PRO CALABARZON IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUMMARY
DISMISSAL POWER WITHOUT AFFORDING FULLY HEREIN RESPONDENT-
APPELLANT OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE NOTICE AND HEARING.
DISCUSSIONS

The challenged DECISION of Regional Director of PRO-CALABARZON


was issued pursuant to Section 53 of RA 8551 which is the source of his
summary dismissal power. While PNP Regional Directors are empowered by
the rules with summary dismissal power under Section 53 of R.A. 8551, such
power however may not be used as unbridled power to disregard respondent-
appellant’s right to due process and notice.

The purpose of the proper service of summons under the NAPOLCOM


Revised Rules of Procedure is to properly acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the respondent-appellant, in that, the Disciplinary Authority, which the PNP
Regional Director, can issue a valid Decision.

Respondent-appellant respectfully submits that Section 1(b), Rule 18 of


the NAPOLCOM Revised Rules of Procedure (NAPOLCOM-MC-2016-002) is
emphatic that:

Section 1. x x x

(b) If personal service is not possible or when the respondent


refuses to receive the notices or summons, service may be made by
leaving a copy of the same with the Administrative Officer at his official
station or with any responsible member of respondent’s household at his
known address provided that if the latter also refuses to receive the
summons or notices, service may be made to the official of the barangay
office in that area.

In all instances, a Return of Service by the server shall be made


within twenty-four (24) hours from the service of the respondent, either
personally or by registered mail.

Section 1(b) Rule 18 of the NAPOLCOM Revised Rules is akin to the


nature of Substituted Service of Summons under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court, which provides:
Section 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the
preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the
summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age
and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at
defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof.

SEC. 3. Constructive Service. – If, for whatever justifiable reason, the respondent
cannot be served personally, service may be made by leaving a copy of the
notice and summons at the respondent’s official station.

Though procedural rules in administrative proceedings are less stringent


and often applied more liberally, administrative proceedings are not exempt from
basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in
investigations and hearings. The right to substantive and procedural due process
is applicable to administrative proceedings. – Civil Service Commission v.
Lucas, 361 Phil. 486, 491 (1999).

Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against


him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. The essence of due
process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of. –Libres vs. NLRC, 307 SCRA 675, 683
(1999), citing Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. NLRC, 175
SCRA 437 (1989). Cf. Lagatic vs. NLRC, 285 SCRA 251 (1998); Vinta Maritime
Co., Inc. vs. NLRC, 284 SCRA 656, 664-665 (1998).

With the foregoing situation, if earnest efforts within the reasonable time to
effect personal service of notices and summons upon the respondent-appellant
have failed, substituted service of notices and summons should be resorted to by
the process server in accordance with the Section 1(b) Rule 18 of NAPOLCOM
Revised Rules of Procedure.
Apparently, such substituted service was not been observed by the
process server since no notice such as MEMORANDA and NOTICE TO
RETURN TO WORK ORDER were ever receive by herein respondent-appellant
thus, there were no proper service of notices and summons made upon the
respondent-appellant. Thus, the Honorable PRAB-CALABARZON committed
error in affirming the Decision rendered by the Regional Director and the
summary dismissal meted by respondent –appellant is NULL and VOID.

Again, with these as parameters, herein-respondent respectfully appeal


that the Decision issued by PRAB-CALABARZON in affirming the DECISION of
PNP Regional Office of Police Regional Office CALABARZON be DECLARED
NULL and VOID for failure to afford respondent-appellant due notice by resorting
to substituted service of notices and summons under Section 1(b) of the
NAPOLCOM Revised Rules of Procedure pursuant to its Memorandum Circular
2016-002.

WHEREFORE, premises are considered, it is most respectfully prayed that


the Summary Dismissal issued by the PNP Regional Director PRO
CALABARZON dated April 13, 2016 be reversed and set aside.

Other equitable reliefs under such premises are equally prayed for.

Respectfully submitted on this 26th day of January 2018.

PO1 Al-Musawer Jamu Gadjali


Respondent-appellant
Camp Asturias, Jolo Sulu
Contact No. 09067734204
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMEN OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DILG-NAPOLCOM Center, EDSA corner Quezon Ave., West Triangle, Quezon City

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, PRAB Case No.2017-015


Complainant-Appellee, Admin Case: PRO4A-AC-No.247-0914-15

-versus-

PO1 Al-Musawer Jamu Gadjali FOR: Serious Neglect of Duty


Rizal PPO (AWOL)
Respondent-Appellant.

x-------------------------------x

NOTICE OF APPEAL

COMES NOW the respondent-appellant PO1 Al-Musawer Jamu Gadjali


and within the reglementary period prescribed by the NAPOLCOM Revised
Rules of Procedure (NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular 2016-022) hereby files
this notice of appeal the questioned Decision dated April 13, 2016 rendered by
PCSUPT RICHARD A ALBANO, Regional Director, at Headquarters, Police
Regional Office CALABARZON, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of June
2017.

PO1 Al-Musawer Jamu Gadjali


Respondent-appellant
Camp Asturias, Jolo Sulu
Contact No. 09067734204

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JACINTO C. CABUS


Regional Appellate Board 4 & 4B
PNP Regional Office IV-A

RICHARD A ALBANO
Police Chief Superintendent
Regional Director
EXPLANATION

Greetings:

The copy of the Notice of Appeal so with the Memorandum on Appeal was
served through registered mail to other parties, because personal service is not
being practicable at this time due to the distance between DILG Office and PRAB
IV-A (CALABRZON).

Respectfully yours,

PO1 Al-Musawer Jamu Gadjali