Facts

Rodolfo De Jesus (De Jesus) is the Deputy Administrator for Administrative Services of Local
Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). He was dismissed from the service following the
decision of the Board of Trustees. De Jesus submitted an appeal to the Civil Service
Commission(CSC) regarding the board’s decision.

Before the resolution of his appeal with the CSC, De Jesus was reinstated by the newly-
reconstituted LWUA board. Due to his reinstatement, he withdrew his petition with the CSC.

LWUA Administrator Lorenzo Jamora granted De Jesus the authority to sign/approve and issue
appointment papers of appointees to vacant plantilla positions. Prior to this, Aministrator Jamora
requested the Department of Budget Management (DBM) for authority to hire confidential staff
for LWUA board of trustees.

Jamora then instructed De Jesus to process the appointment paper of the nine newly-appointed
confidential staff. De Jesus forwarded these papers to Edelwina Parungao (Parungao) to have
them transformed into formal appointment paper. The appointment was classified as retroactive.
Administrative Jamora directed the accounting department to process the payment of back
salaries of the said confidential staff.

De Jesus and Parungao notified Administrator Jamora about the requirements of the CSC
regarding appointments, they raised the issue that the retroactive effectivity dates violated the
provision of CSC. Administrator Jamora approved the reissuance which was dated in accordance
to the provision of CSC.

With regards to the appeal submitted by De Jesus (which he already withdrew), the CSC stated
that they had not lost jurisdiction over the case of De Jesus, and that his reinstatement in LWUA
was null and void.

Roque Facura and Eduardo Tuason filed a Joint-Affidavit-Complaint before the Ombudsman
against De Jesus and Parungao charging them with: (a) violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019; and
(b) dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, falsification of official documents, being
notoriously undesirable, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for the alleged
fabrication of fraudulent appointments of 9 employees.

The ground of their complain relates to the retroactive appointment papers, which they deem
fabricated and fraudulent as they were made to appear to have been signed/ approved on the
dates stated, and not on the date of their actual issuance.

In their Joint Counter-Affidavit, De Jesus and Parungao argued that they were mere rank-and-file
employees who were merely following the order of their superior. They were saying that they
had no discretion as to the appointment of the 9 confidential staff.

The complaint in the Ombudsman by Facura and Tuason spawned two cases, an administrative
case and a criminal case to be determined by the Supreme Court. The latter was already resolved
by the Supreme court, wherein it ruled that the evidence presented could not sustain a prima
facie case. The court granted De Jesus’ Motion to Quash for lack of probable cause, additionally,
the court ruled that there was no reasonable ground to believe that there was mens rea (criminal
intent) as to the appointment of the confidential staff.

De Jesus and Parungao argued that the administrative case and the proceeding require the same
quantum evidence, and since the latter was already dismissed by the Supreme Court, the
principle res judicata should be applied, and that the administrative case should also be
dismissed.

Issue

- Whether or not the case should be dismissed on the grounds of the principle of res
judicata.

Ratio

Yes. The Doctrine of res judicata is set forth in Section 47, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. The
principle of res judicata lays down two main rules
1. The judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the
litigation between the parties and their privies and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit
involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal
2. Any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the
determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgement or decree is
rendered, is conclusively settled by the judgement and cannot again be litigated.

As for the case at hand, the second rule is applicable, conclusiveness of judgement.
Conclusiveness of judgement bars the re-litigation of particular facts or issued in another
litigation between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.

The doctrine that res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, and not to
administrative cases, has been abandoned in subsequent cases. Therefore, the principle is
applicable to the case at hand. De Jesus v. Sandiganbayan already declared that there was no
reasonable ground to believe that there were criminal intent in the acts of De Jesus and Parungao,
therefore, applying the principle of res judicata, De Jesus and Parungao may not be held guilty.

Held

Under the principle of res judicata, the respondents are not liable.