MIRALLES VS GO
FACTS:
This case is about a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the CA which affirmed the ruling of the SAC- Napolcom finding Miralles administratively liavble for grave misconduct and ordering his dismissal.
On Dec. 7, 1977 an administrative complaint was filed against Miralles, alleging that Miralles committed grave misconduct by wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without any just motive, and with the intent to kill assaulted Pat. Ressurrecion by use of firearms, which directly caused the death of Pat. Resurrecion and Merculio. After the investigation it was recommended that Miralles be dismissed from service, the decision was appealed by Miralles to the Adjudication Board, which was denied. The petitioner then appealed to the Special Appellate Committee of NAPOLCOM. The appeal was also dismissed at this point., subsequently the issue was appealed to the CA, and the CA ruled that the action of Miralles was pre-mature and it should have filed its action before the Civil Service Commission. Despite this procedural error, the CA went on to decide on the case and it affirmed the decision of the lower courts.
ISSUES:
1. Whether CA has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
2. Whether the dismissal of the petition can be sustained by the evidence presented/used.
3. Whether the petitioner sufficiently establish his alibi of self-defense.
HELD:
The Court ruled that Miralles should have filed his appeal in the Civil Service Commission first, pursuant to RA 6975. The court found that the contention of Miralles is untenable, he argued that the decision was promulgated in 1989, years before the implementation of RA 6975, therefore he should be not be covered by the said RA. However the Court said that, it is true that the decision was promulgated on 1989, however Miralles only received such copy of the decision sometime in 1991, and by then the RA was already implemented, therefore Miralles should have filed its action before the CSC. The Court went on and say that the right to appeal is a statutory right, therefore one who seeks to avail the right, must comply with the statute or the rile in effect when the right arose, in this case the right arose or vested when the notice was delvered to Miralles, therefore Miralles should have complied with the new rule. Lastly the Court went on to say that the issues is moot and academic.
Regarding the evidence used against Miralles, according to him it was all hearsays which should not be entertained by the Court, Miralles alleged that the evidence did not properly identified the persons who executed them, hence such becomes inadmissible. The Court however has a different opinion, it states the except exhibits B and C, the rest of the documents are public documents, hence they are prima facie evidence. Furthermore the contention of Miralles that the testimony of Lamsen was recanted by Lamsen in a cross-examination, the court by searching the record proved that there was no recantation by Lamsen during the cross examination. In fact the said recantation was actually a statement made by Lamsen as a witness for the defense, in which Lamsen was never cross-examined, making his defense testimony inadmissible.
Lastly, the Court found that the facts of the case has been consistently the same under the lower court and committees, it ruled that the Supreme Court respects the integrity of the facts finding of the lower court, and according to such Miralles failed to establish his defense of self-defense sufficiently.
With all things considered the Court affirmed the decision of the CA.
