Carlito C. Encinas vs.

PO1 Alfredo Agustin, Jr and PO1 Joel Caubang

GR No. 187317, April 11, 2013

Principle: 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. The 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 (CSC)
to dismiss the petitioner from the service.

The controversy arose when the petitioner allegedly required the respondents
to pay him ₱5,000 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
₱2,000 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 (BFP) and at the same time filed another
complaint before the CSC Regional Office in Pampanga and the CSC 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 CSC and the BFP are in violation of the rules against forum shopping.

Issue: W/N there is a violation on the rules against forum shopping. – No.

Held: 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; and (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; and (4) between the two actions, there
must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action.

In applying the above requisites in the case at bar, 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.