ANTONIO FALCON, PETITIONER, VS. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS AUDITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

Petition for a writ of mandamus
to compel the Auditor General to pass in audit and approve for payment a final
award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission against the Republic of the Philippines.

By decision of 20
December 1967, in its Case No. RO6-4911, the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission ordered the Republic of the Philippines to pay claimant Modesto
Falcon the sum of P3,360.00 for the death in line of duty of his son, Clarencio T. Falcon, of the Philippine Navy’s Naval Air
Unit, plus P336.00 as counsel fees.  The
Solicitor General, on behalf of respondent Republic, moved to reconsider,
praying that the gratuity paid to the claimant under Republic Act No. 610 be
deducted from the award, but such deduction was refused by the Commission.  No appeal having been perfected, the award
became final and the Commission’s Secretary urged the Navy to satisfy the
claim.  Payment was recommended by the
Solicitor General, but the Navy Auditor insisted on the deduction of the
gratuity paid under Republic Act 610, and he was supported by the Auditor
General.  Hence, this petition for mandamus.

The denial of the claimed deduction by the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission having become final, the respondent Auditor General has no
alternative but to approve the payment of the Commission’s award.  For him to insist on reducing the compensation
payable thereunder (by insisting that the indemnity
paid under Republic Act No. 610 should be subtracted from it) amounts to a
review by him of the Commission’s final award, and no such review is authorized
by law or jurisprudence.  The decisions
of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission are exclusively appealable
to the Supreme Court, yet even the latter is powerless to alter awards that
have become final, so long as they are made within the Commission’s
jurisdiction, which is not questioned in this case.

Provincial Auditor vs. Judge Teodoro,
99 Phil. 504, relied upon by the respondent, is inapplicable, because there the
Auditor’s office was not made a party and was not heard in its defense.  Hence, this Court said in that case:

“and it is not fair to adjudge an
issue in a proceeding where the person to be affected is not a regular party,
and what is worse can not properly assert a defense particularly approved by
statutes and precedents.”

In the case before us, the respondent in the case below was the
entire Republic of the Philippines,
and the Auditor General lays no claim to be independent of it.  Since the finality of the award binds and
concludes the Republic, it should likewise conclude the respondent.  That is elementary.  The merits of the question raised by him were
there passed upon and finally resolved in the negative, and it is contrary to
justice and public interest that the issue should be invoked anew.  Its denial has become res
judicata. 
A final judgment is conclusive between the parties with respect to the
matter directly adjudged or any other matter that could be raised in relation
thereto.^[1]

WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is granted, and respondent
Auditor General is ordered to pass in audit the petitioner’s claim as decided
by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in its final judgment of 20 December 1967. No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor,
JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Revised Rule of Court 39, section 49 (b); Peñalosa vs.
Tuason, 22 Phil. 303, 312; Philippine National Bank v.
Barretto, 52 Phil. 818, 824; Namarco
v. Judge Macadaeg, 52 O.G. 182, 98 Phil 185;
Miranda v. Tiangco, et al., L-7044, 31 Jan.
1955, 96 Phil. 526; Jalandoni v. Martin Guanzon, 54 O.G. p. 2907, 102 Phil. 859; Soriano v. De Leon, L-7863, 31 Aug. 1959; Velasquez v.
Gil. 53 O.G., p. 5615.