SAN LUIS V.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 80160 | June 26, 1989 | Cortes, J.

DOCTRINE: The decisions of both the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the President
had long become final and executory, the same can no longer be reviewed by the courts. It is
well-established in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies,
rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality, the force and
binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.

FACTS:
1. 31 May 1959: Mariano Berroya was appointed as quarry superintendent of Laguna
Province.
2. April and May of 1973, Berroya denounced graft and corrupt practices by employees of the
provincial government of Laguna.
3. 20 June 1973: Gov. San Luis issued Order No.72 transferring Berroya to Office of the
Provincial Engineer invoking LOI 14-B for such transfer. Berroya opposed.
4. 25 October 1973: CSC ruled the same violative of Section 32, RA 2260, and ordered that
Berroya be reverted to his regular position of quarry superintendent.
5. 12 Dec1973: Gov. San Luis suspended Berroya for alleged discourtesy, insufficiency and
insubordination.
6. 26 Feb 1974: CSC reiterated its October 25, 1973 directive and ruled the one-year
suspension illegal. Gov. San Luis appealed to Office of the President.
7. 29 May 1974: OP Decision 954 – reversed CSC ruling without prejudice to the decision of
the Local Review Board (sustained the 1-year suspension). Berroya filed a MR.
8. 19 May 1976: OP Decision 1834 set aside OP Decision 954, and ordered that Berroya be
paid his back salaries. Gov. San Luis moved for reconsideration of OP Decision 1834 but it
was denied.
9. 27 Apr 1977: Gov. San Luis dismissed Berroya for alleged neglect of duty, unauthorized
absences, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of duty, and abandonment of office.
Berroya appealed to the CSC.
10. 23 Jan 1979: CSC declared Berroya’s dismissal as unjustified and directed his reinstatement
as quarry superintendent. Gov. San Luis sought relief thru MR which the CSC Merit Systems
Board denied in its Resolution No. 567.
11. 6 Nov 1978:Gov. San Luis moved anew to set aside OP Decision 1834, but the OP dismissed
said motion.
12. Berroya filed for MANDAMUS to compel his reversion as quarry superintendent with back
salaries for the entire period of his suspension and dismissal and damages. Gov. San Luis
filed for a MTD said petition for Mandamus, and opposed the therein application for
preliminary injunctive relief for immediate reinstatement.
13. During pendency of CC for mandamus (9 April 1981), Gov. San Luis filed a petition for relief
from OP Decision 1834 with the OP (for the 3 rd time). The OP DENIED it since it can only
allow one MR.
14. 17 May 1985: RTC held that Berroya’s transfer is sufficiently warranted his one-year
suspension, and his summary dismissal is likewise justified by LIO 14-B; and none of the
respondents (petitioners herein) should be held personally liable because they did not act
with malice and bad faith; BUT it nevertheless ordered Berroya’s reinstatement (to any
position equivalent to that of a quarry superintendent which has been abolished in the
present plantilla of the provincial government of Laguna as reorganized pursuant to PD
1136 without diminution in rank and salary).
15. Berroya appealed the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals. The CA on April 30, 1987 ruled
in Berroya’s favor. The decision of May 17, 1985 is set aside.
16. Gov. San Luis filed MR to CA but it was denied. Hence this instant petition which is both or
alternatively an original action for certiorari and mandamus and an appeal by certiorari; and
another petition for review of CA decision filed with SC.
17. This petition is considered to be a PETITION for certiorari and mandamus to review the
decision of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE AND RULING: Whether or not the decisions of the Civil Service Commission and the
Office of the President can be reviewed by the Courts - NO

RATIO:
Since the decisions of both the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the President had
long become final and executory, the same can no longer be reviewed by the courts. It is well-
established in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies,
rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality, the force and
binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by
competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or
administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts
having general judicial powers.

The principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the
judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but it extends to all bodies upon whom
judicial powers had been conferred. Hence, whenever any board, tribunal or person is by law
vested with authority to judicially determine a question, like the Merit Systems Board of the
Civil Service Commission and the Office of the President, for instance, such determination,
when it has become final, is as conclusive between the same parties litigating for the same
cause as though the adjudication had been made by a court of general jurisdiction

On Petition for Mandamus

Berroya had established his clear legal right to reinstatement and back salaries under the
aforementioned final and executory administrative decisions, it became a clear ministerial duty
on the part of the authorities concerned to comply with the orders contained in said decisions.
In this case, the appropriate administrative agencies having determined with finality that
Berroya’s suspension and dismissal were without just cause, his reinstatement becomes a plain
ministerial duty of the petitioner Provincial Governor, a duty whose performance may be
controlled and enjoined by mandamus.

On backwages
According to settled jurisprudence, Berroya, as an illegally terminated civil service employee is
entitled to back salaries limited only to a maximum period of five years. hat petitioners
Provincial Governor, Provincial Treasurer and Provincial Engineer of Laguna, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Laguna and the Province of Laguna, formally impleaded herein, are liable for
back salaries in case of illegal termination of a civil service employee finds support in earlier
decisions of this Court.

However, the petitioners Juanito Rodil and Amado Romey must be held liable only in their
official capacities as Provincial Engineer and Provincial Treasurer, respectively since they had
been expressly sued by Berroya as such

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the appellate court is hereby MODIFIED as
follows: (1) the petitioners, in their official capacities, are ordered to pay private respondent
Berroya, his back salaries for a maximum period of five years; (2) since the reinstatement of
Berroya can no longer be ordered by reason of his having reached the retirement age, he
should instead be paid all the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law; and (3)
petitioner Felicisimo T. San Luis, in his personal capacity, is further ordered to pay Berroya the
sum of P50,000.00 as and for moral damages, the sum of P20,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees
plus costs and other expenses of suit. This decision shall be IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

Amado C. Arias & Cresencio D. Data vs. The SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts
Petitioners Arias Arias (District Engineer) and Data (Chief Auditor), were found guilty by
SB for violating sec. 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft Practices Act:

SEC. 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers-In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law. the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxxxxxxx
(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 offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions
Arias and Data were convicted by SB violating the above provision together with their 3
subordinates & 1 private citizen Gutierrez (seller of land) (6 silang lahat na convicted).

The background of the story dates back in year 1975, when the Bureau of Public Works
planned the “Mangahan Floodway Project” to ease the perennial floods in some parts of
Marikina and Pasig, Metro Manila. This floodway project will traverse certain portions of
Ortigas, where the land sold by Gutierrez to the Govt (subject matter in this case) was located.

The implementation of this floodway project was entrusted to the Pasig Engineering
District headed by Data (District Engineer). In this regard, Data formed a committee headed by
Fernando (Supervising Civil Engr) as over-all in-charge (Fernando did not face trial and remains
at-large) and 3 other subordinates. The subordinates were Mendoza & Hucom, for acquisition
and improvements, and Jose the Instrument man for surveys (Mendoza & Jose are 2 other
convicted co-accused). This committee was tasked to inform affected lot owners affected by
the floodway project and to receive and process payments.

Among the lot owners affected was a 19, 004 sq.m. riceland (subject matter in this case)
owned by Agleham, which was previously owned by parents of Gutierrez (private citizen &
convicted co-accused) from whom Agleham acquired his property. Gutierrez was one of those
who filed an application for payment, holding with her a Special Power of Attorney allegedly
executed by Agleham. In her application, she submitted fake and falsified documents i.e. Tax
Declaration Certificate purporting that the land was residential with fair market value of P80/sq
m.

These documents were submitted to 2 other convicted co-accused -- examined by

Arcaya (Admin. Officer) while Cruz (Senior Engineer) initialed the documents & prepared a Deed
of Sale. Cruz later transmitted them to District Engineer Data. Data and Gutierrez both later
signed the Deed of Sale. These documents were sent to Director Anolin of Bureau of Public
Works, who recommended approval of the Deed of Sale and later returned to Data’s office.
Hence the sale was registered and a TCT was issued in the name of the Govt.

For this sale, a General Voucher was prepared, for the amount of P1.5M plus with
certifications of Data and his 3 subordinates (Fernando ,Cruz, and one accountant). This
general voucher and other supporting documents were pre-audited and approved for payment
by Arias (Chief Auditor), petioner and convicted co-accused. Arias then later issued 16 PNB
checks for total sum of P1.5M plus for Gutierrez as payment of property in 1978.

In 1979, an investigation was conducted by the Ministry of National Defense on this

alleged gross overpricing of Agleham’s property. Several Government employees denied
signing the certification and gave sworn statements. One of them is Oco, an Assistant Mun.
Assessor who provided the genuine Tax Declaration Certificate, showing among others that the
subject property is actually a riceland (but classified as residential) and overpriced at P80/sq.m.
(instead of appraised value of P5/sq.m.) -- showing that the officials of the District Engineering
Office falsified them. The investigators also found that the Deed of Sale was approved by Arias
for payment of P1.5, who didn’t question the altered amount (snowflaked and amount
superimposed) nor checked the veracity of the fake documents.

The case was on trial for 6 years, and SB found 2 petitioners ARIAS & DATA, their 3
subordinates (CRUZ, JOSE, & ARCAYA) & private citizen GUTIERREZ guilty of violation of Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Among the 6 convicted accused, only the 2 petitioners, Arias (District Engineer) and Data
(Chief Auditor) appealed.

ISSUE: WON SB petitioners ARIAS and DATA are guilty as co-conspirators in the conspiracy to
cause injury to the Government through the irregular disbursement and expenditure of public
funds. NO

RATIO: No.
1. Under the Sandiganbayan's decision, a department secretary, bureau chief, commission
chairman, agency head, and all chief auditors would be equally culpable for every crime arising
from disbursements which they have approved. The department head or chief auditor would be
guilty of conspiracy simply because he was the last of a long line of officials and employees who
acted upon or affixed their signatures to a transaction. Guilt must be premised on a more
knowing, personal, and deliberate participation of each individual who is charged with others as
part of a conspiracy.

2. The Sandiganbayan, without any clear factual basis for doing so has assumed that the
P5.00 per square meter value fixed by the assessor in the tax declarations was the correct
market value of the Mangahan property and if the Government purchased the land for P80.00 a
square meter, it follows that it must have suffered undue injury. In the instant case, the
assessor's low evaluation, in the fixing of which the landowner had no participation, was used
for a purpose infinitely more weighty than mere expropriation of land. It forms the basis for a
criminal conviction by the SB.
The Court is not prepared to say that P80.00 to P500.00 a square meter for land in Pasig in 1978
would be a fair evaluation. The value must be determined in eminent domain proceedings by a
competent court. We are certain, however, that it cannot be P5.00 a square meter. Hence, the
decision, insofar as it says that the "correct" valuation is P5.00 per square meter and on that
basis convicted that petitioners of causing undue injury, damage, and prejudice to the
Government because of gross overpricing, is grounded on shaky foundations.
There can be no overpricing for purposes of a criminal conviction where no proof adduced
during orderly proceedings has been presented and accepted.

3. BASIC REASON OF SC: We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued
by all too common problems-dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple
assignments or positions, or plain incompetence is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction
simply because he did not personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step
from inception, and investigate the motives of every person involved in a transaction before
affixing, his signature as the final approving authority.
There appears to be no question from the records that documents used in the negotiated sale
were falsified. A key tax declaration had a typewritten number instead of being machine-
numbered. The registration stampmark was antedated and the land reclassified as residential
instead of ricefield. But were the petitioners guilty of conspiracy in the falsification and the
subsequent charge of causing undue in injury and damage to the Government?
We can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed records, inspected documents,
received procedures, and questioned persons. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized office
could personally do all these things in all vouchers presented for his signature. The Court would
be asking for the impossible. All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent 'on their
subordinates and on the good faith of those prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into
negotiations. If a department secretary entertains important visitors, the auditor is not
ordinarily expected to call the restaurant about the amount of the bill, question each guest
whether he was present at the luncheon, inquire whether the correct amount of food was
served and otherwise personally look into the reimbursement voucher's accuracy, propriety,
and sufficiency. There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in
such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or commissions can attest
to the volume of papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of document , letters and
supporting paper that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or
departments is even more appalling.
There should be other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher to
sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.

ARIAS’ PARTICIPATION: Arias joined the Pasig office on July 19, 1978. The negotiations for the
purchase of the property started in 1977. The deed of sale was executed on April 20, 1978. Title
was transferred to the Republic on June 8, 1978. In other words, the transaction had already
been consummated before his arrival. Should the big amount of P1,520,320.00 have caused
him to investigate . gate the smallest detains of the transaction? Yes, if the land was really
worth only P5.00 a square meter. However, if land in Pasig was already worth P80.00 a square
meter at the time, no warning bell of intuition would have sounded an inner alarm. Land along
Ortigas Avenue on the way to Pasig is now worth P20,000.00 to P30,000.00 a square meter.

DATA’S PARTICIPATION: The committee he formed determined the authenticity of the

documents presented to them for processing and on the basis thereof prepared the
corresponding deed of sale; thereafter, the committee submitted the deed of sale together
with the supporting documents to petitioner Data for signing; on the basis of the supporting
certified documents which appeared regular and complete on their face, petitioner Data, as
head of the office and the signing authority at that level, merely signed but did not approve the
deed of sale as the approval thereof was the prerogative of the Secretary of Public Works for its
final approval.
HELD: SB decision SET ASIDE insofar as it convicts and sentences petitioners Arias & Data. They
are both acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt. Inadequacy of evidence is not sufficient to
warrant a conviction.