Case Doctrine:
There is forum shopping when litis pendencia or res
judicata is present.
FACTS:
The petitioner Encinas was the
Provincial Fire Marshall of Nueva Ecija. He was charged administratively with
grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in
violation of the Administrative Code of 1987. He was dismissed from the service.
The two respondents were holding the positions of Fire Officer I. He petitioner
filed a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing
the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Civil
Service Commission to dismiss the petitioner from the service.
The case arose when the
petitioner allegedly required the respondents to pay him P5,000 in order not to
relieve them from their station at the Cabanatuan City and re-assign them to a
far flung area. The respondents decided to pay in fear of the re-assignment, but
they manage to come up with P2,000 only causing the petitioner to order for
their re-assignment to Cuyapo and Talugtug.
As a result, the respondents
decided to file a complaint for illegal transfer before the Bureau of Fire
Protection and at the same time filed another complaint before the Civil
Service Commission Regional Office in Pampanga and the Civil Service Commission
in Cabanatuan. Based on the filed complaints, the petitioner alleges that the respondents
are guilty of forum shopping by filing the two identical complaints. The
petitioner claims that the charges of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to public interest that were filed before the Civil Service Commission
and the BFP are in violation of the rules against forum shopping.
ISSUE:
RULING:
The court held the respondents
are not guilty of forum shopping. The court enumerated what constitutes a violation
of forum shopping which include the presence of the requisites of litis
pendentia and res judicata. There is litis pendentia when: (1) identity of
parties is the same with the same interests in both actions, (2) identity of
rights asserted and reliefs prayed for and founded on the same facts, (3)
identity of the two preceding cases where a judgment rendered in the pending
case will amount to res judicata in the other case.
For res judicata to bar the
institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites include (1) the
former judgment is final, (2) the court rendering the said decision has jurisdiction
over the parties and the subject matter, (3) judgement is based on the merits,
(4) between the two actions, there must be identity of parties, subject matter
and cause of action.
In applying the above
requisites, the court held that the dismissal of the petitioner based on the
BFP complaint does not constitute res judicata in relation to the CSC
complaint. The dismissal by the BFP is not based on the merits, but based on
the recommendation of the fact finding committee in determining whether a
formal charge of an administrative offense may be filed. There is therefore no
rights and liabilities of the parties that were determined in the said action
with finality. The court thereby affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner and
denied the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment