GR NO 104768
FACTS:
The petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the resolutions
of the sandiganbayan.
Immediately after successful EDSA Revolution, Pres. Aquino issued EO
No. 1 creating PCGG which is tasked to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former
Pres. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subodinates and close
associates. Accordingly, PCGG through Chairman Salonga created and AFP
Anti-graft Board (AFP Board) tasked to investigate reports of unexplained
wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service
or retired. AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained
wealth of Maj. Gen. Ramas. Based on the findings, he owned a house and lot
in La vIsta in QC and the equipment/items of communication facilities were
found in the premises of Elizabeth Dimaano, the mistress of the reposndent,
which were likewise confiscated. It has been recomended that Maj. Gen.
Ramas be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices and RA 1379 An Act for the forfeiture of unlawfully
acquired property on which the PCGG has filed a petition for forfeiture under
RA 1379. An amendment complaint was filed alleging that Ramas acquired
funds, assets and properties by taking undue advantage of their public office
while Dimaano was confidential agent of RAmas.Sandiganbayan rendered a
decision dismissing the amendment of complaint for lack or merit and
ordered to return the confiscated stuff to Elizabeth dimaano. And MR wasfiled
by the petitioner. Sandiganbayan rendered A Reso denying the motion.
ISSUE: WON the respondent court seriously erred in declaring the properties
confiscated from Dimaanos house a illegally seized
HELD:
The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As succinctly
stated in President Aquinos Proclamation No. 3 dated 25 March 1986, the
EDSA Revolution was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973
Constitution. The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary
government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty
obligations that the revolutionary government, as thede jure government in
the Philippines, assumed under international law.
We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not
operative during the interregnum. However, we rule that the protection
accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in
effect during the interregnum. During the interregnum, the directives and
orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no
constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With
the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there
was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the
revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not
invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was
neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum.
To hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained
operative during the interregnum would render void all sequestration orders
issued by the Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG) before
the adoption of the Freedom Constitution. The sequestration orders, which
direct the freezing and even the take-over of private property by mere
executive issuance without judicial action, would violate the due process and
search and seizure clauses of the Bill of Rights. During the interregnum, the
government in power was concededly a revolutionary government bound by
HELD:
1.ID.; SUPERVISION AND CONTROL BY THE GOVERNMENT.The law of
June 20, 1849, the royal order of April 27, 1875, and the instructions
promulgated on the latter date conferred upon the former sovereign
authority to supervise and control certain private or special charities
of a temporary nature.
1.
ID.; TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY; EFFECT ON THE LAWS.While there is a
total abrogation of the former political relations of the inhabitants of ceded
territory, and an abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of
the substituted sovereign, the great body of municipal law regulating private
and domestic rights continues in force until abrogated or changed by the
new ruler. Laws conferring upon the Government power to supervise and
control special charities are not in conflict with the political character,
constitution or institutions of the United States.
SORIANO VS LA GUARDIA
G.R. No. 164785, April 29, 2009
FACTS
The Minister of INC felt directly alluded by an offending remark made by
Soriano in one of his episodein his regular program aired on UNTV 37, Ang
Dating Daan. This ensued 8 private complainants whoare members of INC
to file an affidavit-complaint against herein petition (Soriano) before the
MTRCB.Forthwith, the MTRCB sent petitioner a notice of the hearing in
relation to the alleged use of some cusswords in the said episode. After a
preliminary
conference
in
which
petitioner
appeared,
the
MTRCBo rd e re d p re v e n t i v e s u s p e n s i o n o f h i s p ro g r a m f o r 2 0 d a y
s , i n a c c o rd a n c e w i t h S e c t i o n 3 ( d ) o f Presidential Decree No. (PD)
1986, creating the MTRCB, in relation to Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the
2004Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986 and Sec.
7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure. The petitioner
sought reconsideration of the preventive suspension order, praying
thatLaguardia and two other members of the adjudication board recuse
themselves from hearing the case,but withdrew the same two days
after, and, instead fi led with the SC of a petition for certiorari
andprohibition to
nullify
the preventive
suspension
order
thus
issued. Meanwhile, in the administrative case filed against the respondent
with the MTRCB, it was held that therespondent is liable for his
utterances and thereby imposing on him a penalty of three (3)
monthssuspension
from said program. He
then
fi led
petition
for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief on the
ground that the preventive suspension imposed against him and the relevant
IRRprovision authorizing it are invalid inasmuch as PD 1986 does not
expressly authorize the MTRCB toissue preventive suspension
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE MTRCB IS ENTITLED TO ISSUE PREVENTIVE
SUSPENSION
HELD:
Administrative Law; Movie and Television Review and Classification Board
(MTRCB); Powers of an administrative agency is ascertained from the law
itself which is liberally construed. Movie and Television Review and
STATE IMMUNITY
PHILIPPINE AGUILA SATELLITE VS LICHAUCO
GR NO. 134887 JULY 2006
FACTS:
On June 6, 1994, a Memorandum of Understanding1 (MOU) was entered into by
a consortium of privatetelecommunications carriers and the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC), they formed acorporation and adopted
the corporate name Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. (PASI). They requested the then
DOTCSecretary Amado S. Lagdameo, Jr. for official government confirmation of the
assignment of Philippine orbital slots 161Eand 153E to PASI for its AGILA satellites
by a letter dated June 28, 1996.When it was confirmed, PASI undertook preparations
for the launching, operation and management of its satellites by,among other
things, obtaining loans, increasing its capital, conducting negotiations with its
business partners, and makingan initial payment. When they requested the Land
banks confirmation of its participation in a club loan for thegovernments
assignment to PASI of orbital slots 161E and 153E, DOTC Undersecretary Josefina
T. Lichauco sent aletter to the bank controverting the said assignment, clearly
stating that orbital slot 153E can no longer be assigned toPASI. She subsequently
issued a Notice of Offer for several orbital slots including 153E in December
1997.PASI, claiming that the offer was without its knowledge and that it
subsequently came to learn that another companywhose identity had not been
disclosed had submitted a bid and won the award for orbital slot 153E, filed on
January 23,1998 a complaint7before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong
City against Lichauco and the "Unknown Awardee," for injunction to enjoin
the award of orbital slot 153E, declare its nullity, and for damages.PASI filed on
February 23, 1998 a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against
Secretary Josefina TrinidadLichauco. In his affidavit-complaint, de Guzman charged
Lichauco with gross violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.3019, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended, reading:(e) Causing
any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of officers or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses
or permits or other concessions. Because a prejudicial question was found by the
Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB), the criminal suit was
dismissed and reconsideration was denied by Order dated July 17, 1998. Hence,
PASI is in petition for review oncertiorari, arguing that the Ombudsman erred in
dismissing the complaint.
Issue:
WON there exists a prejudicial question, and if in the affirmative, whether or not the
dismissal of the complainton that account is in order
R U L I N G :
Yes, there exists a prejudicial question because if the award to the undisclosed
bidder of the orbital lot 153Eis, in the civil case declared valid for being within
Lichaucos scope of authority to thus free her from liability for damages,there would
be no prohibited act to speak of nor would there be basis for undue injury claimed
to have been suffered bypetitioner.No, according to Yap v. Paras, Section 6, Rule
111 of the Rules of Court directs that the proceedings may only besuspended, not
dismissed, and that it may be made only upon petition, and not at the instance of
the judge alone or theinvestigating officer. It would sanction the extiguishment of
the criminal liability, if there be any, through prescriptionunder Article 89 vis a vis
Article 90 and 91 of the RPC.The Order dismissing OMB Case No. 0-98-0416 dated
July 17, 1998 against Lichauco was set aside. The Ombudsman wasOrdered to
reinstate the case for further proceedings.
R AT IO NA LE :
When a public officer acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, any injury caused by
him is his own personalliability and cannot be imputed to the State. (p.34, Political
Law, Isagani Cruz)
Prejudicial Questions; The rationale for the principle of prejudicial question is that
although it does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused, it
tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint or information in order to
sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case.The rationale for the principle
of prejudicial question is that although it does not conclusively resolve the guilt or
innocence of the accused, it tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint
or information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case.
Hence, the need for its prior resolution before further proceedings in the criminal
action may be had. [Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. vs. Lichauco, 496 SCRA
588(2006)]
Prejudicial Questions; When, in the course of the actions taken by those to whom
the complaint is endorsed or forwarded, a prejudicial question is found to be
pending, Section 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court should be applied in a suppletory
character, which rule directs that the proceedings may only be suspended, not
dismissed, and that it may be made only upon petition, and not at the instance of
the judge alone or the investigating officer.When, in the course of the actions
taken by those to whom the complaint is endorsed or forwarded, a prejudicial
question is found to be pending, Section 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court should be
applied in a suppletory character. As laid down in Yap v. Paras, 205 SCRA 625
(1992), said rule directs that the proceedings may only be suspended, not
dismissed, and that it may be made only upon petition, and not at the instance of
the judge alone or as in this case, the investigating officer. To give imprimatur to the
Ombudsmans dismissal of petitioners criminal complaint due to prejudicial
question would not only run counter to the provision of Section 6 of Rule 111 of the
VIGILAR VS AQUINO
GR NO 180388
Angelito M. Twano, petitioner, the OIC District Engr. of DPWH 2nd Engineering
District of Pampanga sent an Invitation to bid to respondent Arnulfo D.
Aquino (owner if AD Aquino Construction and supplies). The bidding was for
the construction of a dike by bull-dozing a part of the Porac River.On July 7,
1992, the project was awarded to respondent and a "Contract Agreement"
has been executed with amount of Php 1,873,790.69, to cover the project
cost.On. July 9, 1992, the project was completed. Respondent Aquino,
however claimedthat Php 1,262,696.20 was still due to him, but petitioners
refused to pay. He then, filed a complaint fort the collection of sum of money
with damages before RTC of Guagua. Petitioners has the following
contentions, that the Complaint wasa suit against the State, respondent
failed to exhaust administrative remedies,Contract of Agreement was void
for violating PD 1445 (Government Auditing Code)- appropriation and
Certificate of Availability of Funds.On November 28,2003, lower court ruled in
favor of the respondent. The lower court ordered DPWH to play Aquino the
amount for the completion of the project, Php 50,000 attorney's fees and
cost if thus unit.On appeal, CA reversed and set aside the decision. It said
PEOPLE VS VERSOZA
RULING:
Same; Same; Same; While courts must exercise the greatest caution in
entertaining petitions for reconstitution of destroyed or lost certificates of
title, this caveat should not be taken to the extent of depriving a person who
had already fully complied with the jurisdictional requirements set forth in
R.A. No. 26 from being granted the reconstitution prayed forthe law does
not give the court discretion to deny the reconstitution if all the basic
AUTHORITY,
petitioner,
vs.
Republic Act No. 7227; Commission on Audit (COA); The Boards power to
adopt a compensation and benefit scheme is not unlimited; Members of the
Board shall receive a per diem of not more than Five thousand pesos
(P5,000) for every board meeting: Provided, however, That the per diem
collected per month does not exceed the equivalent of four (4) meetings.
The Boards power to adopt a compensation and benefit scheme is not
unlimited. Section 9 of RA No. 7227 states that Board members are entitled
to a per diem: Members of the Board shall receive a per diem of not more
than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) for every board meeting: Provided,
however, That the per diem collected per month does not exceed the
equivalent of four (4) meetings: Provided, further, That the amount of per
diem for every board meeting may be increased by the President but such
amount shall not be increased within two (2) years after its last increase.
Same; Same; The specification of compensation and limitation of the amount
of compensation in a statute indicate that Board members are entitled only
to the per diem authorized by law and no other.Section 9 specifies that
Board members shall receive a per diem for every board meeting; limits the
amount of per diem to not more than P5,000; and limits the total amount of
per diem for one month to not more than four meetings. In Magno v.
Commission on Audit, 531 SCRA 339 (2007), Cabili v. Civil Service
Commission, 492 SCRA 252 (2006), De Jesus v. Civil Service Commission, 471
SCRA 624 (2005), Molen, Jr. v. Commission on Audit, 453 SCRA 769 (2005)
and Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit, 374 SCRA 482 (2002), the
Court held that the specification of compensation and limitation of the
amount of compensation in a statute indicate that Board members are
entitled only to the per diem authorized by law and no other. [Bases
Conversion and Development Authority vs. Commission on Audit, 580 SCRA
295(2009)]
Same; Same; Same; Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Circular
Letter No. 2002-2 states that, Members of the Board of Directors of
agencies are not salaried officials of the government. As non-salaried officials
they are not entitled to PERA, Adoption of a Compensation (ADCOM), YearEnd Benefit (YEB) and retirement benefits unless expressly provided by law.
Republic Act (RA) No. 7227 does not state that the Board members are
entitled to a year-end benefit.DBM Circular Letter No. 2002-2 states that,
Members of the Board of Directors of agencies are not salaried officials of
the government. As non-salaried officials they are not entitled to PERA,
ADCOM, YEB and retirement benefits unless expressly provided by law. RA
No. 7227 does not state that the Board members are entitled to a year-end
benefit.
Same; Same; Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Circular Letter
No. 2002-2 states that, Year-End Benefit (YEB) and retirement benefits, are
personnel benefits granted in addition to salaries. As fringe benefits, these
shall be paid only when the basic salary is also paid. The full-time
consultants are not part of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority
(BCDA) personnel and are not paid the basic salary.DBM Circular Letter No.
2002-2 states that, YEB and retirement benefits, are personnel benefits
granted in addition to salaries. As fringe benefits, these shall be paid only
when the basic salary is also paid. The full-time consultants are not part of
the BCDA personnel and are not paid the basic salary. The full-time
consultants consultancy contracts expressly state that there is no employeremployee relationship between the BCDA and the consultants, and that the
BCDA shall pay the consultants a contract price. [Bases Conversion and
Development Authority vs. Commission on Audit, 580 SCRA 295(2009)]
RULING
Same; Same; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Resort must first be
made to the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) which is the agency
possessed of expertise in determining pollution-related matters before filing
the complaint before the regular courts.Jalos, et al. had, therefore, an
administrative recourse before filing their complaint with the regular courts.
The laws creating the PAB and vesting it with powers are wise. The definition
of the term pollution itself connotes the need for specialized knowledge
and skills, technical and scientific, in determining the presence, the cause,
and the effects of pollution. These knowledge and skills are not within the
competence of ordinary courts. Consequently, resort must first be made to
the PAB, which is the agency possessed of expertise in determining pollutionrelated matters. [Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. vs. Jalos, 630 SCRA
399(2010)]
Same; Same; Same; Shells primary obligation under the contract is not to
represent the Philippine government for the purpose of transacting business
with third persons; Its contractual commitment is to develop and manage
petroleum operations on behalf of the State.Shells main undertaking
under Service Contract 38 is to [p]erform all petroleum operations and
provide all necessary technology and finance as well as other connected
services to the Philippine government. As defined under the contract,
petroleum operation means the searching for and obtaining Petroleum
within the Philippines, including the transportation, storage, handling and
sale of petroleum whether for export or domestic consumption. Shells
primary obligation under the contract is not to represent the Philippine
government for the purpose of transacting business with third persons.
Rather, its contractual commitment is to develop and manage petroleum
operations on behalf of the State. [Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. vs. Jalos,
630 SCRA 399(2010)]
AGRA VS COA
Gr no. 167807 10-6-2011
Commission on Audit; Jurisdiction; The Commission on Audit (COA) had
exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the allowance or disallowance of money
claims arising from the implementation of Republic Act No. 6758.In
National Electrification Administration v. Morales, 528 SCRA 79 (2007), the
order of garnishment against the NEA funds to implement the RTC Decision
was in issue, and we said that the COA had exclusive jurisdiction to decide on
the allowance or disallowance of money claims arising from the
implementation of Republic Act No. 6758. We observed therein that the RTC
acted prudently in halting implementation of the writ of execution to allow
the parties recourse to the processes of the COA. In fact, we even stated
there that it is not for this Court to preempt the action of the COA on the
post-audit to be conducted by it per its Indorsement dated March 23, 2000.
Administrative Law; Public Officers; Definition of an Incumbent.We have
defined an incumbent as a person who is in present possession of an office;
one who is legally authorized to discharge the duties of an office. There is
no question that petitioners were not incumbents as of June 30, 1989. We
have likewise characterized NEA as a GOCC in National Electrification
Administration v. Morales, 528 SCRA 79 (2007). Thus, Section 5.5 quoted
above, issued pursuant to the authority given to the DBM under Section 12 of
Republic Act No. 6758, was correctly applied by the COA.
Same; Same; Allowances and Fringe Benefits; Requirements for the
continuous grant of allowances and fringe benefits on top of the
standardized salary rates for employees of Government-Owned and/or
Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) and Financial Institutions (GFIs).As
petitioners were hired after June 30, 1989, the COA was correct in disallowing
the grant of the benefit to them, as they were clearly not entitled to it. As
quoted above, we have repeatedly held that under Section 12 of Republic Act
No. 6758, the only requirements for the continuous grant of allowances and
fringe benefits on top of the standardized salary rates for employees of
GOCCs and GFIs are as follows: (1) the employee must be an incumbent as of
July 1, 1989; and (2) the allowance or benefit was not consolidated in the
standardized salary rate as prescribed by Republic Act No. 6758. [Agra vs.
Commission on Audit, 661 SCRA 563(2011)]
commercial contract that can be questioned before the local courts. [China
National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs. Santamaria, 665 SCRA
189(2012)]
NHFMC VS ABAYARI
GR NO. 166508
Actions; Mandamus; Special Judgments; Words and Phrases; A writ of
mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent
jurisdiction, in the name of the state or sovereign, directed to an inferior
court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person, requiring the
performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from
the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from
operation of law; A favorable judgment rendered in a special civil action for
mandamus is in the nature of a special judgment and as such, it requires the
performance of any other act than the payment of money or the sale or
delivery of real or personal property.A writ of mandamus is a command
issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state
or sovereign, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some
corporation or person, requiring the performance of a particular duty therein
specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom
the writ is directed, or from operation of law. It is employed to compel the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty which, as opposed to a
discretionary one, is that which an officer or tribunal performs in a given
state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his or its own judgment upon
the propriety or impropriety of the act done. A favorable judgment rendered
in a special civil action for mandamus is in the nature of a special judgment.
As such, it requires the performance of any other act than the payment of
money or the sale or delivery of real or personal property the execution of
which is governed by Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. [National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation vs. Abayari, 602 SCRA 242(2009)]
Same; Same; Garnishment; Garnishment is proper only when the judgment
to be enforced is one for payment of a sum of moneyit cannot be [National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation vs. Abayari, 602 SCRA 242(2009)]
Same; Same; The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and its
regional office are merely the agents of the former (the Republic), which is
the real party in interest in Civil Case No. 333-M-2002; The summons in this
case should have been served on the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
In the instant case, the Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages
filed by Domingo specifically named as defendant the DPWH Region III. As
correctly argued by the Republic, the DPWH and its regional office are merely
the agents of the former (the Republic), which is the real party in interest in
Civil Case No. 333-M-2002. Thus, as mandated by Section 13, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court, the summons in this case should have been served on the
OSG.
Same; Parties; It is the duty of the plaintiff to implead all the necessary or
indispensable parties for the complete determination of the action.On the
other hand, Domingo opines that the DPWH Region III apparently neglected
to inform the OSG of the pendency of Civil Case No. 333-M-2002.
Accordingly, Domingo asserted that he should not be faulted therefor. The
Court disagrees. Domingo ought to bear in mind that it is the duty of the
plaintiff to implead all the necessary or indispensable parties for the
complete determination of the action. It was, thus, incumbent upon him to
name and implead the proper defendant in this case, i.e., the Republic, and
cause the service of summons to be made upon the officer mandated by law,
that is, the OSG. As Domingo failed to discharge this burden, he [Republic vs.
Domingo, 657 SCRA 621(2011)] cannot now be allowed to shift the blame on
the DPWH Region III or hold in estoppel the OSG.
Same; Annulment of Judgment; A judgment of annulment shall set aside the
questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null
and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper
court.In accordance with Section 7, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, a
judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final
order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to
the original action being refiled in the proper court. [Republic vs. Domingo,
657 SCRA 621(2011)]
the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have
been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its
face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily
included therein or necessary thereto. In explaining the two concepts of res
judicata, this Court held that: There is bar by prior judgment when, as
between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second
case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject
matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the
first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly
controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein.
This is conclusiveness of judgment. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of
judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit
cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if
the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of
causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues.
Same; Same; Same; Test to Determine Whether or Not the Causes of Action
are Identical.In Pealosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303 (1912), we laid down the
test in determining whether or not the causes of action in the first and
second cases are identical: Would the same evidence support and establish
both the present and former cause of action? If so, the former recovery is a
bar; if otherwise, it does not stand in the way of the former action.
Government Service Insurance System; Execution of Judgments; The
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) cannot claim immunity from
the enforcement of the final and executory judgment against it where the
monetary judgments against it arose [Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) vs. Group Management Corporation (GMC), 651 SCRA 279(2011)] has
two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Section
47(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of
judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c), which reads as follows: (b) In other
cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly
adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation
thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by
title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding,
litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same
capacity; and (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their
successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a
former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so
adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or
necessary thereto. In explaining the two concepts of res judicata, this Court
held that: There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case
where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be
barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But
where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second
cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive
only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined
and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is conclusiveness of
judgment. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and
issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised
in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may
involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is
not required but merely identity of issues.
Same; Same; Same; Test to Determine Whether or Not the Causes of Action
are Identical.In Pealosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303 (1912), we laid down the
test in determining whether or not the causes of action in the first and
second cases are identical: Would the same evidence support and establish
both the present and former cause of action? If so, the former recovery is a
bar; if otherwise, it does not stand in the way of the former action.
Government Service Insurance System; Execution of Judgments; The
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) cannot claim immunity from
the enforcement of the final and executory judgment against it where the
monetary judgments against it arose [Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) vs. Group Management Corporation (GMC), 651 SCRA 279(2011)] the
parties to assert their claims anew, the second is to determine which
judgment came first, and the third is to determine which of the judgments
had been rendered by a court of last resort. In Collantes, this Court applied
the first option and resolved the conflicting issues anew. However, resorting
to the first solution in the case at bar would entail disregarding not only the
final and executory decisions of the Lapu-Lapu RTC and the Manila RTC, but
also the final and executory decisions of the Court of Appeals and this Court.
Moreover, it would negate two decades worth of litigating. Thus, we find it
more equitable and practicable to apply the second and third options
consequently maintaining the finality of one of the conflicting judgments.
The primary criterion under the second option is the time when the decision
was rendered and became final and executory, such that earlier decisions
should prevail over the current ones since final and executory decisions vest
rights in the winning party. In the third solution, the main criterion is the
determination of which court or tribunal rendered the decision. Decisions of
this Court should be accorded more respect than those made by the lower
courts.
Same; Same; The interest of the judicial system in preventing relitigation of
the same dispute recognizes that judicial resources are finite and the number
of cases that can be heard by the court is limited.While this Court cannot
blame the parties for exhausting all available remedies to obtain a favorable
judgment, the issues involved in this case should have been resolved upon
the finality of this Courts decision in G.R. No. 141407. As pronounced by this
Court in Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 180 (1998): The interest of
the judicial system in preventing relitigation of the same dispute recognizes
that judicial resources are finite and the number of cases that can be heard
by the court is limited. Every dispute that is reheard means that another will
be delayed. In modern times when court dockets are filled to overflowing,
this concern is of critical importance.
[Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) vs. Group Management Corporation (GMC), 651 SCRA
279(2011)]