CARLITO C. ENCINAS v. PO1 ALFREDO P. AGUSTIN, GR No. 187317, 2013-04-11
Facts:
Respondents were then both holding positions as Fire Officer
I in Nueva Ecija. They claim that on 11 March 2000, at around 9:00 p.m.,
petitioner who was then Provincial Fire Marshall of Nueva Ecija informed them
that unless they gave him P5,000, they would be relieved from their station at
Cabanatuan City and transferred to far-flung areas. Respondent Alfredo P.
Agustin would supposedly be transferred to the Cuyapo Fire Station, and
respondent Joel S. Caubang to Talugtug Fire Station.
Fearing the reassignment, they decided to pay petitioner. Respondents
came up short and managed to give only P2,000, prompting petitioner to direct
them to come up with the balance within a week. When they failed to deliver the
balance, petitioner issued instructions effectively reassigning respondents
Agustin and Caubang to Cuyapo and Talugtug, respectively, respondents filed a
letter-complaint for illegal transfer of personnel under R.A. No. 6975. The record is not clear as to why this
Complaint was later docketed by the BFP for preliminary investigation for
violation of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
On 12 April and 25 April 2000, on the basis of similar
facts, respondents likewise filed with the CSC Regional Office in San Fernando,
Pampanga, as well as with the CSC Field Office in Cabanatuan City, their Joint
Affidavit/Complaint. This time, they accused petitioner of violation of Section
4(c) of R.A. No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees.
Petitioner argues that respondents are guilty of
forum-shopping for filing two allegedly identical Complaints in violation of the
rules on forum-shopping. He explains that dishonesty, grave misconduct, and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service charges included in the
CSCRO Complaint were charges that were equivalent to the BFP Complaint, the
subject of which was his alleged violation of R.A. 6975 or illegal transfer of
personnel.
Issues:
Whether or not respondents are guilty of forum-shopping.
Ruling:
In Yu v. Lim, the Court enumerated the requisites of
forum-shopping as follows:
Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia
are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata
in another. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following
requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights
asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts;
and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two
cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the
other case.
Applying the foregoing requisites to this case, we rule that
the dismissal of the BFP Complaint does not constitute res judicata in relation
to the CSCRO Complaint. Thus, there is no forum-shopping on the part of
respondents.
Res judicata means "a matter adjudged; a thing
judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment."
It lays down the rule that an existing final judgment or decree on the merits,
rendered without fraud or collusion by a court of competent jurisdiction upon
any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties
or their privies in all other actions or suits, in the same or any other
judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction, on the points and matters in
issue in the first suit.
In order that res judicata may bar the institution of a
subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (a) the former
judgment must be final; (b) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a...
judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and the second
actions (i) identity of parties, (ii) identity of subject matter, and (iii)
identity of cause of action.
A judgment may be considered as one rendered on the merits
"when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the
disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory
objections;" or when the judgment is rendered "after a determination
of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some
preliminary or formal or merely technical point.
In this case, there is no "judgment on the merits"
in contemplation of the definition above. The dismissal of the BFP Complaint in
the Resolution dated 05 July 2005 was the result of a fact-finding
investigation for purposes of determining whether a formal charge for an
administrative offense should be filed. Hence, no rights and liabilities of
parties were determined therein with finality.
The CA was correct in ruling that the doctrine of res
judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the
exercise of administrative powers. Administrative powers here refer to those
purely administrative in nature, as opposed to administrative proceedings that
take on a quasi-judicial character.
In administrative law, a quasi-judicial proceeding involves
(a) taking and evaluating evidence; (b) determining facts based upon the
evidence presented; and (c) rendering an order or decision supported by the
facts proved. The exercise of quasi-judicial functions involves a
determination, with respect to the matter in controversy, of what the law is;
what the legal rights and obligations of the contending parties are; and based
thereon and the facts obtaining, the adjudication of the respective rights and
obligations of the parties.
The Court has laid down the test for determining whether an
administrative body is exercising judicial or merely investigatory functions:
adjudication signifies the exercise of the power and authority to adjudicate
upon the rights and obligations of the parties. Hence, if the only purpose of
an investigation is to evaluate the evidence submitted to an agency based on
the facts and circumstances presented to it, and if the agency is not
authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties, then there is
an absence of judicial discretion and judgment.
In this case, an analysis of the proceedings before the BFP
yields the conclusion that they were purely administrative in nature and
constituted a fact-finding investigation for purposes of determining whether a
formal charge for an administrative offense should be filed against petitioner.
The proceedings before the BFP were merely investigative,
aimed at determining the existence of facts for the purpose of deciding whether
to proceed with an administrative action.
With the above disquisition, we rule that the dismissal of
the BFP Complaint cannot operate as res judicata. Therefore, forum-shopping is
unavailing in this case.
Comments
Post a Comment