NELSON P. COLLANTES V. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
FACTS:
Petitioner was conferred Career Executive Service Eligibility on February 29, 1996. President Fidel V. Ramos accorded him the rank of Career Executive Officer (CESO) II on 10 February 1997. A year later, he was appointed as USec for Peace and Order of the DILG.
With the change of administration, then President Estrada appointed petitioner to the controversial post - USec. for Civilian Relations of the DND. Petitioner was ordered by Sec. Orlando Mercado to renounce his post in favor of another presidential appointee, General Orlando Soriano. In deference to the President's prerogative, he resigned from office believing that he will soon be given a new assignment. Unfortunately, petitioner was not given any other post in the government, as in fact, he received a letter, terminating his service. Petitioner, then requested the assistance of the Career Executive Service Board relative to the termination of his service as USec. for Civilian Relations of the DND invoking his rights to security of tenure as a CESO.
Petitioner instituted a Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus. He maintained that he was constructively dismissed from work, without any cause and due process of law, and thus, his position in the DND was never vacated at all. He also prayed that the appointment of Mr. Edgardo Batenga be nullified, and that he be reinstated to his former position with full back salaries. Petitioner also sought for appointment to a position of equivalent rank commensurate to his CESO Rank I if reinstatement to his former position is no longer legally feasible.
The CSC favorably acted on Collantes' letter-request issuing Resolution No. 011364 and thereby holding that Collantes' relief as Undersecretary of DND amounted to illegal dismissal as he was not given another post concomitant to his elligibility.
The Court held that by such actuations of the petitioner, it finds that he has effectively resigned from his position as Undersecretary of the DND and the public respondents are under no compulsion to reinstate him to his old position. Hence, the instant petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus is hereby dismissed.
The controversy reached the Supreme Court. However, the case was considered closed and terminated when petitioner manifested his desire not to pursue his appeal and withdraw his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
CSC issued a Resolution No. 021482 declaring that the Motion for Reconsideration of Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs Leticia A. Gloria of the DND is hereby GRANTED. Then, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA praying for the reversal of the CSC. Before decision was ruled by the CA, petitioner was appointed as General Manager of the Philippine Retirement Authority, hence, the CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari.
Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review, seeking the reversal of the foregoing Decision and Resolution of CA with a prayer that is now limited to seeking the payment of backwages and other benefits that may have been due him from the time of his alleged dismissal to his appointment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a grave and reversible error when it held that the decision in CA-GR No.62874 in the Court of Appeals is a bar to implement the final and executory judgment of the Civil Service Commission dated August 14, 2001.
RULING:
Both petitioner and herein respondents CSC and DND invoke the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.
The Court ruled that what is important in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same.
The elements of forum shopping are:
(a) Identity of parties or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions;
(b) Identity of the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) The identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways:
(1) Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pedentia);
(2)Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and
(3) Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pedentia or res judicata)
In this case, there is a clear distinction between the right of petitioner to the position of Undersecretary for Civilian Relations and his right to be re-appointed to another position of equivalent rank, in view of his CESO I status. The former issue was resolved by the CA when it ruled that petitioner had "effectively resigned from his position as USec of DND, and the public respondents are under no compulsion to reinstate him to his old position". The latter issue of petitioner arises from his right to security of tenure as a Career Executive Service Eligible and not from his appointment to the DND.
A jurisprudence in the United States provides:
"Where there have been two former actions in which the claim or demand, fact or matter sought to be religated has been decided contrarily, the rule that, where there is an estoppel against an estoppel, it "setteth the matter at large" has been applied by some authorities, and in such case both parties may assert their claims anew. Other authorities have held that, of two conflicting judgments on the same rights of the same parties, the one which is later in time will prevail, although it has also been held that the judgment prior in time will prevail. It has been held that a decision of a court of last resort is binding on the parties, although afterward, in another cause, a different principle was declared"
Three are three solutions which we can adopt in resolving the case at bar; the first is for 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.
This Court held that there are no special legal effects when a resignation is one of a courtesy resignation. The mere fact that the President, by himself or through another, requested for someone's resignation does not give the President the obligation to appoint such person to another position.
A courtesy resignation is just as effectual as any other resignation. There can be no implied promises of of another position just because the resignation was made our of courtesy. Any express promise of another position, on the other hand, would be void, because there can be no derogation of the discretion of the appointing power and because its object is outside the commerce of man.
Wherefore, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.
No comments:
Post a Comment