LUIS SARABIA AND JOSE LEIDO, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES AND FRANCISCO B. LARDIZABAL, RESPONDEN…

On August 27, 1951, petitioners Luis Sarabia and Jose Leido filed individual
fishpond applications (Nos. 7304 and 7305) with the Bureau of Fisheries over 100
hectares each of public land located in Barrio Nag-iba, Naujan, Oriental
Mindoro. About a year later, on July 16, 1952, respondent Francisco B.
Lardizabal filed a similar application (No. 8777) also covering public land
located in the same barrio and municipality. At the time the three men filed
their applications, however, the areas applied for were still included in a
communal forest and was not available for fishpond purposes. It was only on
February 27, 1953, that said areas were disestablished, and on March 16, 1953,
certified by the Director of Fisheries as available for fishpond purposes.

Acting on the three applications, the Director of Fisheries, by orders of
April 21, 1953 and March 29, 1954, adjudicated to petitioners Sarabia and Leido,
individually and separately, 50 hectares out of the 100-hectare area applied for
by them. Also on March 29, 1954, the Director of Fisheries rejected the
application of respondent Francisco B. Lardizabal for the reason that the area
applied for by him was within that applied for by petitioner Leido who, being a
prior applicant, was entitled to preference under Fisheries Administrative Order
No. 14, as amended. On August 21, 1954, Ordinary Fishpond Permit No. 1938-I was
issued to Sarabia, and on September 10, 1954, Ordinary Fishpond Permit No.
F-2338-j was issued to Leido. Both permits bore the approval of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.

In the meantime, respondent Lardizabal, on July 29, 1954, wrote a letter to
the President of the Philippines, through the PCAC, complaining about the
actuations of the Director of Fisheries in regard to the disposition of the
fishpond applications aforementioned. This letter was indorsed by the PCAC to
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who in turn indorsed it to
the Director of Fisheries, who affirmed his decision granting petitioner Leido
the preferential right over respondent Lardizabal on the ground that his
application was filed one year ahead of Lardizabal’s application. Upon being
informed by the PCAC of the disposition made by the Director of Lands of his
complaint, respondent Lardizabal again wrote the PCAC on October 12, 1954,
reiterating his complaint regarding the rejection of his application by the
Director of Fisheries, which letter was again referred to the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, who, considering the same as an appeal from
the decision of the Director of Lands on the matter, took action upon it and
eventually issued an order on August 22, 1955 modifying the order of the
Director of Lands by reducing the areas granted to petitioners Sarabia and Leido
from 50 hectares to 33-1/3 hectares each, and giving the remaining 33-1/3
hectares to Lardizabal. Both Sarabia and Leido moved to reconsider the order of
the Secretary, urging, among other things, that the appeal of Lardizabal from
the decision of the Director of Lands to the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources was filed out of time and that, therefore, the Secretary did
not have jurisdiction to issue his amendatory order in question. The motions to
reconsider having been denied, Sarabia and Leido filed second motions for
reconsideration, which were also denied. Hence, Sarabia and Leido filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case
No. 28932) to annul said amendatory order of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources for having been allegedly issued without or in excess of
jurisdiction. On June 22, 1954, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the
petition, first, because appeal and not certiorari was the proper remedy and the
period for appeal from the order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources had already prescribed; and second, that petitioners could have
appealed to the President of the Philippines but did not do so, so that they had
failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. From this judgment, Sarabia and
Leido appealed to this Court, but we dismissed their appeal for having been
filed out of time. “Sarabia, et al. vs. Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, et al.” (104 Phil., 151).

Later, on January 16, 1959, petitioners Sarabia and Leido filed another
petition, this time for prohibition, in the Court of First Instance of Manila
(Civil Case No. 38988), again claiming the nullity of the amendatory order of
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources dated August 22, 1955 on the
ground that it was issued after the decision of the Director of Fisheries had
become final and after the period of respondent Lardizabal for appeal to the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources had already prescribed, and
praying that said Secretary be forever enjoined from enforcing his decision of
August 22, 1955. Respondent Lardizabal urged the dismissal of the petition,
claiming that it is barred by the prior decision of this Court in G. R. No.
L-11107, and on August 17, 1959, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing
the petition on the grounds:

“that the present case is res adjudicata and is barred by the Rules of
Court, that the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal of the
petitioners cannot be modified, annulled or changed by this Court for lack of
jurisdiction, and since this action was presented for review or for the change
of the decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioners have no cause of action
and this Court has no jurisdiction in deciding the same.”

From the above judgment, petitioners took the present appeal to this
Court.

We see no merit in the appeal.

The basic contention and cause of action of petitioners-appellants in their
former petition for certiorari and the present petition for prohibition is the
same: the alleged nullity of the amendatory decision of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources dated August 22, 1955 on the ground that the
appeal of respondent Lardizabal was filed out of time. The parties in the two
cases are also the same, and the remedy or relief sought in both cases is
likewise the same, the nullification of the decision of August 22, 1955 of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the additional relief asked for
in this proceeding for prohibition to enjoin the execution of said decision
being merely incidental to and premised on the main prayer to annul and set
aside the decision in question. The judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila in the former certiorari case, dismissing the petition because appeal was
the proper remedy and because petitioners had failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies before seeking relief in the ordinary courts, was
tantamount to a dismissal based on petitioners’ lack of a cause of action. Such
dismissal was, therefore, a dismissal on the merits, and as petitioners’ appeal
from the judgment of the trial court to this Court was dismissed for having been
filed out of time, said judgment became final and res judicata in all
subsequent actions or suits on the same points and matters raised in said
petition by petitioners.

It is of no moment that the present petition is one for prohibition while the
former case filed by petitioners was for certiorari, since both petitions raise
exactly the same cause of action and are based on exactly the same grounds. The
present petition is, therefore, although presented in a different form, barred
by the former decision in the certiorari case, since a party can not, by varying
his form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape
the effects of res judicata (Cayco vs. Cruz, 106 Phil., 65;
Aguirre vs. Atienza, 104 Phil., 477; Labarro vs. Labitoria, 54
Phil., 845; Peñalosa vs. Tuason, 22 Phil., 303, 321).

Appellants claim that the decision of the Court of First Instance in the
certiorari case can not be res judicata in the present case because the
petition for certiorari was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on
the part of the court to entertain the same. This contention is fallacious and
untenable, for the judgment of dismissal of the certiorari case was not based on
lack of jurisdiction but, as earlier stated, on petitioners’ lack of a cause of
action to maintain a petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in question, on the theory that
the proper remedy of petitioners was appeal and not certiorari and their period
for appeal had expired through their own negligence, and furthermore, because
they failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. If, then, petitioners were
not agreeable to the dismissal made by the trial court of their petition and the
grounds therefor, their remedy was an appeal to this Court. They did appeal, but
their appeal was dismissed by us for having been filed out of time. In view of
the dismissal of their appeal, petitioners became concluded and bound by the
decision of the court of first instance dismissing their certiorari case, and
they can not now be allowed to maintain the present petition for prohibition and
litigate and present for a second time the same issues raised and already
disposed of in their prior petition for certiorari.

“The fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata
rests is that parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more
than once; that, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been
given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be
conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate. * *
*” (National Bank vs. Barretto, 52 Phil., 818, 824; Escudero vs.
Flores, 97 Phil., 240; 51 Off. Gaz., 3444).

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
petitioners Luis Sarabia and Jose Leido.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista
Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad,
JJ., concur.