Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCRA Collantes V CA
SCRA Collantes V CA
_______________
* EN BANC.
562
dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally
resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing
multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers
(splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either
litis pendentia or res judicata). If the forum shopping is not considered
willful and deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed without
prejudice on one of the two grounds mentioned above. However, if the
forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than
two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
_______________
1 Ramos v. Ramos, 447 Phil. 114, 119; 399 SCRA 43, 47 (2003).
563
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
_______________
564
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
his position in the DND was never vacated at all. Accordingly, he prayed
that the appointment of Mr. Edgardo Batenga be nullified, and that he be
reinstated to his former position with full back salaries. Notably, Collantes
also sought for appointment to a position of equivalent rank commensurate
to his CESO Rank I if reinstatement to his former position is no longer
legally feasible.
Meanwhile, on 13 August 2001, the CSC favorably acted on Collantes’
letter-request issuing Resolution No. 011364, and thereby holding that
Collantes’ relief as Undersecretary of DND amounted to illegal dismissal as
he was not given another post concomitant to his eligibility.
Then, on 30 August 2001, We rendered Our Decision in C.A. G.R. SP
No. 62874 dismissing the Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus filed
by Collantes. Significantly, We pronounced:
“By such actuations of the petitioner, the Court finds that he has (sic) effectively
resigned from his position as Undersecretary of the DND, and the public respondents
are under no compulsion to reinstate him to his old position.
xxxx
“In this case, petitioner has undoubtedly shown his intention to relinquish his
public office, and has in fact surrendered such post to the Chief Executive, who, on
the other hand, has shown his acceptance of the same by appointing a new person to
the position relinquished by the petitioner.
xxxx
Quo warranto, it must be pointed out, is unavailing in the instant case, as the
public office in question has not been usurped, intruded into or unlawfully held by
the present occu
565
pant. Nor does the incumbent undersecretary appear to have done or suffered an act
which forfeits his assumption. (Section 1, Rule 66, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
Furthermore, it appears that the action for quo warranto, assuming it is available, has
already lapsed by prescription, pursuant to Section 11 of the pertinent Rule ...
xxxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for Quo Warranto and
Mandamus is hereby DISMISSED.”
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
pay his backwages and other benefits from the time of his termination up to
his actual reinstatement.”
In a Letter dated 7 February 2002, the Legal Affairs Division of the
DND, through Atty. Leticia A. Gloria, urged the CSC to revisit its
Resolutions which were entirely in conflict with Our 30 August 2001
Decision in C.A. G.R. SP No. 62874, which has attained finality pursuant to
the Supreme Court’s Resolution in G.R. No. 149883.
Consequently, in complete turnabout from its previous stance, the CSC
issued Resolution No. 021482 dated 12 November 2002 declaring that had it
been properly informed that a Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus
was then pending before Us, it would have refrained from ruling on
Collantes’ quandary, thus:
566
The Motion for Reconsideration filed 6by petitioner was denied in the
assailed 31 August 2005 Resolution.”
Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review, seeking the
reversal of the foregoing Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals. In view of his 5 August 2004 appointment, however,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
A.
_______________
567
B.
C.
_______________
568
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
_______________
8 Id., at p. 216.
9 Id., at p. 218.
10 Id., at p. 181.
11 Golangco v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 771, 776; 283 SCRA 493, 500 (1997).
569
_______________
570
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
_______________
15 Rollo, p. 124.
16 Id., at p. 63.
17 Id., at pp. 98–102.
18 Id., at p. 111.
19 Id., at pp. 112–115.
20 Id., at pp. 116–118.
571
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
572
that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and,
to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.” (Emphases
supplied.)
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
_______________
573
_______________
574
from one position to another without losing his rank, there can be no
distinction between resigning from a position and resigning from a
rank. The rank of a CESO is deactivated upon separation from the
government service, which includes the resignation of a CESO from
his position. The CESB has clarified this concept of being in the
inactive status in its Resolution No. 554, series of 2002:
Rule II
xxxx
7. CESO in Inactive Status—is a CESO who no longer occupies a
position in the CES as a result of any of the modes of separation from the
government service, provided that such separation is not due to dismissal
from the service for cause.
xxxx
Rule IV
CES:
xxxx
Sec. 2. Effect of Deactivation of CES Rank.—A CESO whose CES
rank has been deactivated by the Board loses all the rights and privileges
accorded to him/her by law on account of his/her CES rank.
575
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
“Where there have been two former actions in which the claim or demand,
fact or matter sought to be religated has been decided contrarily, the rule
that, where there is an estoppel against an estoppel, it “setteth the matter at
large” has been applied by some authorities, and in such case both parties
may assert their claims anew. Other authorities have held that, of two
conflicting judgments on the same rights of the same parties, the one which
is later in time will prevail, although it has also been held that the judgment
prior
_______________
576
in time will prevail. It has been held that a decision of a court of last resort
is binding on the parties,
27
although afterward, in another cause, a different
principle was declared.
There are thus three solutions which we can adopt in resolving the
case at bar: the first is for the parties to assert their claims anew, the
second is to determine which judgment came first, and the third is to
determine which of the judgments had been rendered by a court of
last resort.
As there are conflicting jurisprudence on the second solution, it is
appropriate for this Court to adopt either the first or the third
solution. The first solution involves disregarding the finality of the
two previous judgments and allowing the parties to argue on the
basis of the merits of the case anew. The third solution merely
involves the determination of which judgment has been rendered by
this Court, the court of last resort in this jurisdiction.
Adopting the third solution will result in the denial of this
Petition for Certiorari. Whereas the finality of the 13 August 2001
CSC Resolution came about by the failure to file a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal within the proper reglementary periods,
the finality of the 30 August 2001 Court of Appeals28
Decision was by
virtue of the 12 November 2001 Resolution of this Court which
declared the case closed and
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
27 49 Corpus Juris Secundum § 445, citing Kahl v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., D.C.
Ill., 299 F. 793 (U.S.); Donald v. J.J. White Lumber Co., C.C.A.Miss., 68 F.2d 441
(U.S.); Witty v. Rose, Civ.App., 148 S.W.2d 962 (Tex.); Frost v. Frost, 21 S.C. 501
(S.C.).
28 CA Rollo, p. 104. The Resolution provides:
G.R. No. 149883 (Nelson P. Collantes vs. Hon. Secretary Orlando Mercado, etc., et al.).—The
Court Resolves to:
(a) NOTE the manifestation of petitioner that he decided not to pursue anymore his appeal,
thus he is withdrawing the motion for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari; and
577
_______________
(b) NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the motion for an extension of thirty (30) days
from September 21, 2001 within which to file a petition for review on certiorari in
view of the manifestation for the withdrawal of the motion. This case is deemed
CLOSED and TERMINATED.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
29 Rollo, p. 221.
578
“In the first place, petitioner has not established by any quantum of certainty
the veracity of his claim that he was promised an equivalent position in the
government. Assuming, however, that such promise was true, petitioner, as
a ranking member of the bureaucracy, ought to have known that such
promise offers no assurance in law that the same would be complied with.
The time-honored rule is that public office is a public trust, and as such, the
same is governed by law, and cannot be 32made the subject of personal
promises or negotiations by private persons.”
_______________
579
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/17
3/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
Petition denied.
——o0o——
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001695cc18b1e0c6ac63e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/17