Facura vs.

Court of Appeals
GR No. 166495; February 16, 2011
Res Judicata

Mendoza, J:

Issue: Did De Jesus and Parungao falsify the appointment papers of the nine confidential
employees of Local Water Utilities Administration’s (LWUA) Board of Trustees?

Facts:
- The LWUA was authorized to take final action on appointment papers
- LWUA Administrator Jamora wrote to the Department of Budget and
Management asking them for authority to hire confidential staff for the LWUA
Board of Trustees
- Jamora gave De Jesus, as Deputy Administrator, the power to sign and issue
appointment papers of appointees to vacant LWUA positions which have been
approved by the Administrator or the Board of Trustees
- Jamora sent a memo to De Jesus in the Office of Administrative Services and to
the Investment and Financial Services to process the payment of salaries and
allowances of his two newly appointed confidential staff who reported to him
effective October 10, 2001
- De Jesus forwarded the memo to Parungao in the Human Resources
Management Department for appropriate action
- In December 2001, the DBM granted their permission for the LWUA to hire
people for the Board’s confidential staff
- Following the receipt of the letter, the LWUA board members issued their
respective memos and letters announcing the retroactive appointments of their
confidential staff
o The confidential staff were reporting to the board members effective
dates that fell between August and October 2001
o The board’s letters included Jamora’s approval of the hiring of the
board’s confidential staff
- Upon receipt of the memos and letters, De Jesus forwarded the documents to
Parungao in the HRMD for appropriate action
- Parungao processed the papers to procure formal appointment papers
o The appointment papers indicated the names of the staff members and
the date of their appointment, which featured the retroactive dates
stated in the letters and memos of the board (August to October 2001)
- Parungao then affixed her initials on the document and sent them to De Jesus,
who signed the appointment papers as the representative of LWUA
- These were sent to the DBM to process the retroactive salaries of the nine
confidential staff members of the Board of Trustees
- De Jesus and Parungao informed Jamora that, under CSC Resolution No. 967701,
they needed to submit two copies of the Report on Personnel Actions (ROPA)
 within the first fifteen days of the following month along with the certified true
copies of the appointments acted on. Otherwise, the appointment of the board’s
staff may be deemed invalid
- The appointment papers that LWUA had prepared with retroactive effectivity
dates would have violated the provisions of CSC Res. No. 967701, along with
Rule 7, Section 11 of the CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointments
- To get around this, the appointment papers were re-issued effective December
12, 2001, while the ROPA was submitted on January 15, 2002
o De Jesus and Parungao signed and affixed their initials on the document,
respectively, with the approval of Jamora
- In February 2002, Jamora wrote to the DBM clarifying if their earlier letter had
retroactive effect
- In June 2002, the DBM replied saying that their previous letter may be
implemented retroactively

Held: No, De Jesus and Parungao did not falsify the appointment papers of the nine
confidential employees of the LWUA’s Board of Trustees

Ratio:
- As of Section 47 (c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as
conclusiveness of judgment, “in any other litigation between same parties or
their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a
former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so
adjudged, or which actually and necessarily included therein and necessary
thereto
- In De Jesus vs. Sandiganbayan, the court found no criminal intent (mens rea) and
absolutely no false narration of facts in either of the two sets of appointment
papers signed by De Jesus
- On Conclusiveness of Judgment and De Jesus vs. Sandiganbayan. Given that the
administrative case against De Jesus regarding falsification of documents shared
identical facts, parties and issue with the criminal case, then the administrative
case versus De Jesus is bound to the factual findings from the criminal case
- Therefore, since the criminal case found absolutely no false narration of facts in
the appointment papers, then the administrative case against De Jesus may be
dismissed on the grounds of conclusiveness of judgment