ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 146732. March 9, 2005]

ALUNDAY vs. SEC. OF NAT'L DEFENSE

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 9 2005.

G.R. No. 146732 (Ex-Cadet Jeremy L. Alunday vs. The Secretary of National Defense, Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Superintendent, Philippine Military Academy.)

This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the Decision ^[1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals dated August 23, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 58752 and its Resolution ^[2] cralaw dated December 12, 2000.

The facts as gleaned from the records are:

On June 3, 1999, Cadet 4/CL Alfredo Ong, a first-year cadet or "plebe" reported to Cadet 2/CL Rino L. Guda in the latter's quarters at the Philippine Military Academy, Baguio City. Inside the room were two other second-class cadets, Emmanuel Diasen and Sherwin Soriano. The three upper-class men were playing cards. Soriano immediately asked Ong to perform a back field crouch. At this point, Cadet 2/CL Jeremy L. Alunday, petitioner, entered the room, approached Ong and ordered him to stand "tip toe, hands back and flash to the cabinet and close his eyes." Then petitioner boxed Ong on his stomach and placed a plugged flat iron on his hands.When it was already hot, he damped it on Ong's tongue.

Due to this incident, petitioner was charged with maltreatment. A Battalion Board was then convened to investigate the incident.

In its Investigation Report, the Battalion Board recommended that: "x x x Cdt 2CL Jeremy L. Alunday C-10520 CCAFP of Hawk Company, CCFAP be returned to FULL DUTY STATUS and be meted ' Fifty (50) Demerits, One Hundred Eighty (180) Punishment Tours and One Hundred Eighty (180) Days Special Confinement under paragraph 67 (Table of Punishments), Section IX, CCAFPR S-94 for having committed a Class I Offense i.e. maltreatment (unauthorized psychological discomfort) done on the person of Cdt 4CL Ong on 03 June 1999 which is mitigated with the absence of the actual commission of the unauthorized act (punches)."

The Battalion Board's Investigation Report was reviewed by Lt. Col. Nehemias Pajareto, the Commandant of Cadets, who recommended to the Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) that petitioner be found "x x x guilty of violating par 65(1) (b), Section IX CCAFPR s-94 and be discharged from the service for acts of maltreatment, i.e., punching the victim, placing a flat iron on the hand of the victim (from the time it was plugged up to the time the flat iron accumulated enough heat; and later damped the flat iron (which was still hot) on the tongue of the victim."

In his Special Order dated August 17, 1999, the PMA Superintendent adopted the recommendation of the Commandant of Cadets and approved petitioner's leave of absence without pay pending his discharge from the Academy by higher authorities.

Petitioner then appealed to the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). In an Order dated April 7, 2000, then Chief of Staff Angelo T. Reyes ordered the discharge of petitioner from the PMA effective September 1, 1999. The Order is quoted as follows:

"DISCHARGE FROM THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY

Cadet Second Class Jeremy L. Alunday, C-10520 Cadet Corps, Armed Forces of the Philippines, is discharged from the Philippine Military Academy effective 1 September 1999. (Authority: Letter from the office of the President, dated 20 March 2000.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE.

ANGELO T. REYES

General AFP Chief of Staff"

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 58752, alleging that the AFP Chief of Staff committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering his discharge from the PMA.

On August 23, 2000, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

The Court of Appeals held:

"Although Petitioner insists that what he gave to Cdt Ong were mere simulated punches, the act as found by the Battalion Board which conducted the actual investigation constituted Maltreatment, which findings were affirmed by the PMA Superintendent and consequently the order of discharge by the AFP Chief of Staff.

Under paragraph 66.al Section IX of the CCAFPR S-94, maltreatment is defined as any commission of an unauthorized act or intentional omission of a required act by a cadet with the use of or on the basis of his seniority which results in another cadet's physical or mental injury, deprivation of his rightful share of food, water, time of sleep, study or other unauthorized activities; excessive, perverted, or degrading punishments; any unauthorized psychological and physical discomfort, cruelty, indignity, humiliation or oppression; and/or the deprivation or abridgement of any right, privilege, or advantage to which he is legally entitled.

The factual findings of administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and even final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case. Findings or conclusions of administrative bodies are generally respected and even given finality.

It is well settled that factual findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise in their field are binding and conclusive. Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special knowledge and training of such agencies."

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court in its Resolution of December 12, 2000.

Hence, the instant petition.

The only issue before us is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioner.

The PMA Superintendent found petitioner committed acts constituting maltreatment against Cadet Alfredo Ong, a lower-class fellow cadet. His findings were sustained by the AFP Chief of Staff and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

In the case before us, petitioner evidently raises questions of fact and evidentiary matters which are not proper in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. We have consistently held that in a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised before this Court for it is no longer its function to evaluate the evidence all over again. ^[3] cralaw This Court is not a trier of facts and does not, as a rule, weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals. ^[4] cralaw Indeed, the determination of whether petitioner only "gave simulated punches on the victim" which, according to him, do not constitute maltreatment, is a factual issue.

Moreover, it is well-settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court if supported by substantial evidence, as in this case, in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their consideration. [5] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58752 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. (both retired); Rollo at 19-24.

^[2] cralaw Rollo at 26.

^[3] cralaw L.T. Datu & Co., Inc. vs. Sy, G.R. No. 143701, March 23, 2004.

^[4] cralaw Far East Bank & Trust Co. vs. Querimit, 424 Phil. 721, 729-730 (2002), and cases cited therein.

^[5] cralaw Baybay Water District vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. Nos. 147248-49, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 482; Ynson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 117018-19, August 8, 2002, 387 SCRA 30.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011