Notice of Appeal Against Mediocre Decision of National Police Commission

Notice of Appeal 

Against Mediocre Decision

of National Police Commission

            The respondent, by the undersigned counsel (Berteni Cataluña Causing), respectfully files this Notice of Appeal notifying that he is appealing from the Resolution of the National Appellate Board (NAB) dated in resolving his Motion for Reconsideration submitted against the Decision of the NAB dated December 17, 2009.

            The respondent is notifying that he is appealing this Resolution and the Decision dated December 17, 2009 to the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government.

            A copy of the same Resolution was received by the respondent on January 18, 2013 when he followed up his case at the National Appellate Board (NAB).  Assuming it is the reckoning date, the last day to file this Notice of Appeal is on January 28, 2013.  Thus the filing of this Notice of Appeal today, January 22, 2013 is timely.

 

            With due respect however, let the undersigned counsel state his sentiments on this resolution.  

The same Resolution was not yet received by the counsel of respondent PO3 Alberto Senining.  This is A BLATANT ERROR DISREGARDING THE RULE THAT THE COUNSEL MUST BE THE ONE TO BE SERVED WITH A COPY OF ANY ORDER OR RESOLUTION OR DECISION, AND THAT ONLY A NOTICE TO THE COUNSEL CAN BIND THE CLIENT.

            To be candid, the resolution is very poor, not one done by a good lawyer. It is clearly erroneous on substantive points and erroneous also because it just ignored other issues raised by the Motion for Reconsideration.

            The same resolution also DID NOT CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE COURT ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT which court’s decision was submitted by the undersigned counsel on August 13, 2010.  It is therefore revolting to conscience for the resolution not to mention anything about it.

            If the Court found otherwise, WHAT IS NOW THE MORAL AUTHORITY OF THE NAB WHEN IT FOUND OTHERWISE?

            The very poor work that is the Resolution does not conscience the interest of justice. 

The writer of the same Resolution must have studied in the College of Law and passed the Bar Exams but it has no quality.  It was a work of a mediocre.  That is because the ERRORS ARE NOT SIMPLE ERRORS IN JUDGMENT BUT GLARING ONES THAT CONSTITUTES GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW.

            The ponente does not conscience the fact that for seven (7) years the respondent has been out of work yet he is innocent and he was actually even acquitted by the Court on the same issues of facts.

            Who is now better? Is it the court that acquitted him or the ponente of this mediocre resolution?

            The undersigned counsel is so considerate but he cannot stomach the ignorance displayed in this Resolution.

The undersigned counsel commiserates with his client, the respondent here, as well as other victims of MEDIOCRE WORKS OF THE MANY LAWYERS EMPLOYED AT THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE AND IN THE PNP.

            The undersigned lawyer must raise this concern now because injustice has been done on many policemen charged with administrative cases and they were all victims of mediocre lawyers in the PNP.

            These harsh statements must not be blamed on the client, respondent PO3 Alberto Senining. 

If the ponente of this resolution gets mad, rest assured that the undersigned lawyer does not know who the ponente is.  But if the NAB chairman and members get mad, vent their anger on the undersigned lawyer and not on the client, the respondent here.

For sure, the same Resolution and the decision from which it was taken violated the 60-day law for the NAB to make a decision.  In this case, it has taken the NAB almost three years to resolve the motion for reconsideration.

            Thus, the following are the specific errors being cited:

1)      The Resolution and the Decision rendered on July 9, 2012 IGNORED THE DECISION OF THE COURT ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE HAVING THE SAME FACTS;

2)      The Resolution and the Decision did not consider the issue raised by the Motion for Reconsideration that the affidavit of the supposed “security guard witness”  was forged and that the hearing officer did not even conduct a clarificatory hearing to call in the alleged security guard;

3)      The Resolution and the Decision did not consider the issue raised by the Motion for Reconsideration that the alleged acts of the respondent were not related to his official work, either as a policeman or as a PDEA agent, it being more of private matters between the respondent and the complainant, so that there is no misconduct and that it cannot be said that the respondent abused his official position;

4)      The Resolution and the Decision did not consider the issue raised by the Motion for Reconsideration that the Decision of the IAS did not comply with the rule on the appreciation of affidavits as enunciated by the Tapiador vs Office of the Ombudsman doctrine;

5)      The Resolution and the Decision did not consider the rule enunciated in the Ang Tibay doctrine that all evidence submitted must be considered;

6)      The Resolution and the Decision erred in ruling that there was any intention to commit the acts accused him of doing, granting without admitting that the same acts were indeed committed;

7)      The Resolution and the Decision did not consider the pieces of documentary evidence that enjoy presumption of regularity;

8)      The Resolution and the Decision erred in ruling on the issue of whether or not the penalty is harsh, assuming without admitting that the acts complained of are indeed true;

9)      The Resolution and the decision erred in ruling on the issue of loyalty to the service and commendations received, granting without conceding that the respondent indeed committed the acts as charged; and

10)  The resolution and the decision failed to take into account the requirement of Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping as stated in the Uniform Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URRACCS) and the new one that is that Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, to which the Napolcom Rules of Procedure must conform with and obey.

These specific errors cited are more than compelling to approve this Notice of Appeal.

            It is being manifested that the Memorandum of Appeal shall be submitted within fifteen (15) days from the date of filing of this Notice of Appeal.