LUCRECIA DELA ROSA, PETITIONER, VS. ROSARIO M. MERCADO, THE HONORABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AND THE MERIT SYSTEMS BOARD, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari, with prayer for
preliminary injunction, seeking to annul Resolution No. 91-1001, promulgated
August 22, 1991 of public respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) upholding
the Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissing petitioner’s
Motion to Dismiss, for lack of merit. In the said questioned resolution, the case against petitioner was
ordered remanded to the MSPB for continuance of proceeding.

It appears that in a complaint dated September 12, 1985 filed
before the MSPB, Rosario Mercado charged Lucresia Dela Rosa, an employee of the
National Housing Authority (NHA) with Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct,
Falsification of Official Document and Dishonesty.

On September 24, 1985, pursuant
to Sec. 37 (b) of P.D. 807 (Civil Service Decree), the MSPB forwarded said
complaint to the NHA for appropriate action.

On December 3, 1985 NHA dismissed the aforesaid complaint on the
ground that no prima facie case exists against said Lucrecia Dela
Rosa. Despite the said NHA decision,
the MSPB, in its Order dated May 28, 1986 assumed jurisdiction to investigate
the case. In the same Order, Dela Rosa
was required to answer in writing the charges against her.

In her Answer dated July 9, 1986, Dela Rosa prayed for the
dismissal of the case. She likewise
pleaded, inter alia; thus: “notwithstanding the fact that the instant case had already become ‘res
judicata‘, respondent hereby adopts the finding and recommendation
contained in the aforesaid letter to your Board dated December 23, 1985, as her
Answer to the instant complaint x x
x.” (p. 10, Rollo) Consequently in its Order dated March 27, 1987, the
MSPB ruled: “This (Answer dated
July 9, 1986) is equivalent to the waiver of the grounds raised for the
dismissal of the case at bar, the same not being seasonably filed.” (p. 11,
Rollo)

On July 11, 1987, Dela Rosa filed a motion to dismiss the case
against her in the interest of justice, the same having been already dismissed
with finality. On August 17, 1987, the
MSPB dismissed the motion for lack of merit. Likewise, her motion to reconsider the same was denied. Dela Rosa appealed to public respondent CSC.

On August 22, 1991, the CSC dismissed for lack of merit Dela
Rosa’s appeal. The pertinent portion of
the said resolution reads –

“The pivotal question/issue to be resolved in the instant
case, is whether or not res judicata exists in the case at bar.

“For a judgment to be a bar to a subsequent case, (RES
JUDICATA), the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be a final judgment; (2) the court which rendered it
had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a
judgment on the merits; and (4)
there must be identity between the two cases, as to parties, subject matter and
cause of action. (Martinez v.
Court of Appeals,
39 SCRA 559)

“Admittedly, there is identity between the case filed before
the NHA and the case filed before MSPB as to parties, subject matter and cause
of action. It should be noted that
government agencies and the Board exercise original and concurrent jurisdiction
over administrative cases. However,
while it may be true, that cognizance of the instant case by NHA would have
excluded the Board from assuming original jurisdiction thereof, on the ground,
that the legal theory of res judicata may be properly invoked, nonetheless, it has been observed that
there was no judgment on the merits of the instant case, an essential requisite
of res judicata.

“Be it stressed that no formal investigation has been conducted by NHA. As stated earlier, the complaint against
respondent Dela Rosa was dismissed for lack of a prima facie
finding guilt.

“Worthy of note at this juncture, is Trino C. Tormon
v. Hon. E. Domingo (G.R. 88198, 1 Philajur, 2ds, 906) January 18, 1990 whereby Trino assailed the
revival of the administrative charges against him.

“The Honorable Supreme Court, in said case held, thus:

‘xxx Before the supposed ‘revival’ of the administrative case, no
formal charges were filed against petitioner. A careful examination of the antecedent facts indicates that the
previous actions taken after the filing of the initial complaint of Flores were
in the nature of preliminary fact-finding investigations for the purpose of
determining whether or not formal charges against petitioner should be filed.

‘Evidently, before any formal charge was filed, petitioner was
never in danger of being found to have committed the acts complained of nor
could there be a final decision or disposition on the merits of any supposed
case upon which a motion for reconsideration may be based or which would
constitute a bar to a subsequent case on the same grounds. (RES JUDICATA)

‘xxx                                             xxx                                           xxx

‘Where no formal
charges were filed and no regular
administrative proceedings conducted, the defense of res judicata or improper motion for reconsideration is not available.’ (Underscoring
supplied)

“The aforecited applies squarely to the case at bar. To reiterate, no formal charge was filed
against Dela Rosa, nor regular administrative proceedings conducted in said
case.

“In sum, res judicata has been improperly impleaded in this case.

“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Commission
dismisses as it hereby dismisses the instant appeal for lack of merit. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to
the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) for continuance of proceedings.”
(pp. 11-12, Rollo)

Hence, this petition.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment praying
that the petition be given due course because all the elements of res judicata
are present in the case at bar. Firstly, there was a judgment rendered by the NHA dismissing the
complaint against petitioner which became final upon failure of
complainant-private respondent to interpose a timely appeal or motion for
reconsideration despite receipt of said order. Secondly, the administrative body – NHA – which rendered the decision
had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to P.D.
807. Thirdly, as admitted even by
public respondent Civil Service Commission, there is identity between the two
cases before the NHA and the
MSPB (CSC Resolution No. 91 – 1001, Records, p. 11). Finally, the decision rendered by the NHA dismissing the
complaint was a judgment on the merits (p. 13, Coment).

The petition was given due course in Our Resolution dated January
28, 1992.

We find the petition meritorious.

A prior decision is conclusive in a second suit where the
elements of res judicata are present. For a prior judgment to constitute a bar to a subsequent case,
the following requisites must concur:

a.     
it must be a final judgment or order;

b.     
the court rendering the same must have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and over parties;

c.     
there must be between the two cases identity of parties,
identity of subject matter and identity of causes of action; and

d.     
it must be a judgment or order on the merits.

As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General,
all the foregoing requisites are present in the case at bar.

The contention of public respondent CSC that there was “no
judgment on the merits of the instant case.” (Resolution 91-1001, Records,
p. 11) is belied by the very decision of the NHA which clearly shows that this
was an adjudication on the merits of the case. (Records, pp. 16-18)

The other contention of public respondent CSC – that no formal
charge was filed against petitioner – is likewise belied by the records which
show that on September 21, 1985, a formal charge was filed by private
respondent in the form of a complaint – affidavit. (Records, pp. 13-14).

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned Resolution
of the Civil Service Commission is SET ASIDE. The case against petitioner pending before the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) is ordered DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.