9. Encina vs. Agustin G.R. No. 187317, April 11, 2013 Doctrine: The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or uasi!judicial proceedin"s, and not to the e#ercise of ad$inistrati%e po&ers. 'oreo%er, the su(seuent desistance (y respondents does not free petitioner fro$ lia(ility, as the purpose of an ad$inistrati%e proceedin" is to protect the pu(lic ser%ice (ased on the ti $e!honored principle that a pu(lic office is a pu(lic trust. And petitioners petitioners act of de$andin" de$andin" $oney in e#chan"e e#chan"e for their non!reassi"n$ non!reassi"n$ent ent constitutes "ra%e $isconduct. Facts: Respondents &ere then (oth holdin" positions as )ire *fficer + in Nue%a cija. They clai$ that petitioner &ho &as then -ro%incial -ro%incial )ire 'arshall 'arshall of Nue%a cija infor$ed the$ that unless they "a%e hi$ -/ they &ould (e relie%ed relie%ed fro$ their station station at a(anatuan ity and transferred to far!flun" areas. Respondent Alfredo -. A"ustin A"ustin A"ustin &ould supposedly (e transferred to the uyapo )ire tation uyapo, uyapo, and respondent respondent 4oel . au(an" au(an" au(an" au(an" to Talu"tu" Talu"tu" )ire tation Talu"tu". )earin" the reassi"n$ent, they decided to pay petitioner. +n the house of a certain 5'yrna,5 respondents ca$e up short and $ana"ed to "i%e only • -2/ pro$ptin" petitioner to direct the$ to co$e up &ith the (alance &ithin a &ee6. hen they failed to deli%er the (alance, petitioner reassi"ned the$. Responden Respondents ts filed &ith the ureau of )ire -rotection -rotection )- a letter!co$ letter!co$plain plaintt )• o$plaint for ille"al transfer of personnel under RA No. 9:7 or ;+c of R.A. No. 9713 or the ode of onduct and thical tandards for -u(lic *fficials *fficials and $ployees. $ployees. The said co$plaint co$plaint pro%ides that they e#ecuted an affida%it affida%it a"ainst a"ainst ncinas for %iolation %iolation of ection ection > of RA 9713 as re"ards justness and sincerity. After a fact!findin" in%esti"ation &as conducted in connection &ith his alle"ed e#tortion • acti%ities, acti%ities, petitioner petitioner &as for$ally for$ally char"ed char"ed &ith dishonesty dishonesty,, "ra%e $isconduct, $isconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the (est interest of ser%ice. ?e &as reuired to file an ans&er &ithin fi%e days fro$ notice. -etitioner -etitioner clai$ed that char"es a"ainst a"ainst hi$ in the ) o$plaint o$plaint has already already (een • dropped (y the in%esti"atin" tea$ for insufficiency of e%idence. Also, for the R* co$plaint, he alle"ed that they &ere reassi"ned after it &as disco%ered that they had conducted a fire safety inspection of esta(lish$ents &ithin Nue%a cija &ithout any $ission order. Also, an affida%it affida%it of desistance desistance &ere $ade (y responden respondents ts and ad$itted ad$itted that &hat • happened &as a $isunderstandin" and $isapprehension of facts (et&een the$. IAS= Reassi"n$ent of respondents &as &ithin the a$(it of authority of the head of office. CSCRO= -etitioner ad$inistrati%ely lia(le for "ra%e $isconduct and conduct prejudicial to the (est interest of ser%ice, and ordered his dis$issal fro$ ser%ice. MR=;enied. 'e$orandu$ denied. No foru$ shoppin" since one co$plaint co$plaint &as for CSC= The Appeal 'e$orandu$ %iolation of RA No. 9713 and the other RA No. 9:7. found that respondents clearly
esta(lished that petitioner had de$anded -/ in e#chan"e for their reassi"n$ent. +t further ruled that the &ithdra&al of the co$plaint ( y the respondents &ould not result in their outri"ht dis$issal or a(sol%e the person co$plained of fro $ ad$inistrati%e lia(ility. CA= ;enied petitioners appeal. Affir$ed . MR= ;enied. Issue/s: 1. *N A erred in affir$in" the Resolution and rulin" that respondents &ere not "uilty of foru$ shoppin". (NO. !. *N su(stantial e%idence does not e#ist to hold petitioner ad$inistrati%ely lia(le for "ra%e $isconduct and conduct prejudicial to the (est interest of the ser%ice. (NO. "e#$: 1. e rule that the dis$issal of the )- o$plaint does not constitute res judicata in relati relation on to the R* o$pla o$plaint int.. Thus, Thus, there there is no foru$! foru$!sho shoppi ppin" n" on the part of respondents. The dis$issal of the )- o$plaint in the Resolution &as the result of a fact! findin findin" " in%est in%esti"a i"atio tion n for purpos purposes es of deter$ deter$ini inin" n" &hethe &hetherr a for$al for$al char"e char"e for an ad$inistrat ad$inistrati%e i%e offense should (e filed. filed. ?ence, ?ence, no ri"hts ri"hts and lia(ilities lia(ilities of parties &ere deter$ined therein &ith finality. The A &as correct in rulin" that the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or uasi!judicial proceedin"s, and not to the e#ercise of ad$inistrati%e po&ers. The ourt has laid do&n the test for deter$inin" deter$inin" &hether an ad$inistrati% ad$inistrati%ee (ody is e#ercisin" e#ercisin" judicial judicial or $erely in%esti"atory functions@ adjudication si"nifies the e#ercise of the po&er and authority to adjudicate upon the ri"hts and o(li"ations o(li"ations of the parties. +n this case, an analysis of the proceedin"s (efore the )- yields the conclusion that they &ere purely ad$inistrati%e in nature nature and constituted constituted a fact!findin" fact!findin" in%esti"ation in%esti"ation for purposes purposes of deter$inin" deter$inin" &hether a for$al char"e for an ad$inistrati%e offense should (e filed a"ainst petitioner.
2. e find petitioner petitioner ad$inistrat ad$inistrati%ely i%ely lia(le for his act of de$andin" de$andin" -/ fro$ responden respondents ts in e#chan"e e#chan"e for their non!reassi"n$ non!reassi"n$ent. ent. %en assu$in" assu$in" that an Affida%it Affida%it of ;esistance &as indeed e#ecuted (y respondents, petitioner is still not e#onerated fro$ lia(ility. The su(seuent reconciliation of the parties to an ad$inistrati%e proceedin" does not strip the court of its jurisdiction to hear the ad$inistrati%e case until its resolution. Atone$ent, in ad$inistrati%e cases, $erely o(literates the personal injury of the parties and does not e#tend to erase the offense that $ay ha%e (een co$$itted a"ainst the pu(lic ser%ice. The su(seuent desistance desistance (y respondents respondents does not free petitioner petitioner fro$ lia(ility, lia(ility, as the purpose of an ad$inistrati%e proceedin" is to protect the pu(lic ser%ice (ased on the ti$e!honored principle that a pu(lic office is a pu(lic trust. A co$plaint for $alfeasance or $isfeasance a"ainst a pu(lic ser%ant of &hate%er ran6 cannot (e &ithdra&n at any ti$e for &hate%er reason (y a co$plainan co$plainant, t, as a &ithdra&al &ould (e 5anathe$a 5anathe$a to the preser%ation preser%ation of the faith and confid confidenc encee of the citie citienry nry in their their "o%ern "o%ern$en $ent, t, its a"enci a"encies es and instru instru$en $ental talitie ities.5 s.5 Ad$inistrati%e proceedin"s 5should not (e $ade to depend on the &hi$s and caprices of co$plainants &ho are, in a real sense, only &itnesses therein.5 e rule that petitionerBs act of de$andin" $oney fro$ respondents in e#chan"e for their non!reassi"n$ent constitutes "ra%e "ra%e $isconduct. 'isconduct is a trans"ression of so$e esta(lished esta(lished and definite definite rule of action, action, $ore particularly, particularly, unla&ful unla&ful (eha%ior (eha%ior or "ross ne"li"ence ne"li"ence (y a pu(lic officer. officer. )urther$or )urther$ore, e, petitionerB petitionerBs acts li6e&ise constitute constitute conduct conduct prejudicial to the (est interest of the ser%ice. The ourt outlined therein follo&in" acts@ $isappropr $isappropriation iation of pu(lic pu(lic funds, funds, a(andon$e a(andon$ent nt of office, office, failure to report report (ac6 to &or6 &ithout prior notice, etc. Applyin" this principle to the present case, &e hold that petitionerBs offense offense is of the sa$e "ra%ity or odiousness odiousness as that of the afore$entione afore$entioned d acts and &ould li6e&ise a$ount to conduct prejudicial to the (est interest of the ser%ice. Gra%e $isconduct is punisha(le (y dis$issal e%en for the first offense &hile conduct prejudicial to the (est interest
of the ser%ice is li6e&ise a "ra%e offense (ut &ith a less se%ere penalty of suspension for the first offense and dis$issal for the second one. The $ore serious one &as applied (y this ourt &hich is the dis$issal of petitioner.
SC= %etition DENIED. Decision an$ Reso#ution o& t'e CA AFFIRMED.
