G.R. No. 206379, November 19, 2014, CECILIA PAGADUAN, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION* AND REMA MARTIN SALVADOR, RESPONDENTS.
SERVICE COMMISSION* AND REMA MARTIN SALVADOR, RESPONDENTS.
X x x.
The principle of res judicata is applicable either by way of “bar by prior judgment” or by “conclusiveness of judgment.” Here, Salvador’s defense was res judicata by conclusiveness of
judgment, in Borra v. Court of Appeals,4 the Court stated that:
judgment, in Borra v. Court of Appeals,4 the Court stated that:
Stated differently, conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or
order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or
petition; the conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment. [Emphasis supplied]
order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or
petition; the conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment. [Emphasis supplied]
Contrary to Salvador’s contention, however, there appears to be no identity of issues and facts in the two administrative cases. The first case involved facts necessary to resolve the issue of whether or not Salvador falsified her PDS. The second one involved facts necessary to resolve the issue of whether or not Salvador was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Falsification was the main issue in the first case, while it was no longer an issue in the second case. The only fact to consider in the second administrative complaint is the fact of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, it must be borne in mind that both administrative complaints were based on different grounds. The grounds were separate and distinct from each other and entailed different sets of facts.
X x x.
