Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Encinas Vs Agustin, Jr. (Forum Shopping Res Judicata)
Encinas Vs Agustin, Jr. (Forum Shopping Res Judicata)
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.
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.