EN BANC
[G.R. No. 236317. November 9, 2021.]
FORMER CONGRESSMAN ROBERTO C. CAJES, petitioner,vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT [EN BANC], THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGIONAL OFFICE VII, CEBU CITY, STATE AUDITOR IV CYMBELINE CELIA CHIONG-UY AND STATE AUDITOR V JOSE R. DESAMPARADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedNOVEMBER 9, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236317 (Former Congressman Roberto C. Cajes vs. Commission on Audit [En Banc], The Regional Director, Commission on Audit, Regional Office VII, Cebu City, State Auditor IV Cymbeline Celia Chiong-Uy and State Auditor V Jose R. Desamparado). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), 1 under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision No. 2016-298 dated October 19, 2016 2 (assailed decision) and the Resolution No. 2017-040 dated July 14, 2017 3 (assailed resolution) of the Commission on Audit (COA).
The COA denied the petition for review filed by petitioner, Roberto C. Cajes, former representative of the 2nd District of Bohol, and affirmed Decision No. 12-011 dated July 4, 2012 4 of the COA Regional Office No. VII (COA-RO 7) (COA-RO 7 decision). The COA-RO 7 decision sustained Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2010-004-101 (2005), dated January 6, 2010, 5 on the purchase of Magnecrop Foliar liquid fertilizers by the Kabus ng Mag-uuma ug Mananagat Foundation, Inc. (KAMAMA) in the implementation of Farm Inputs Programs under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) projects for the 2nd District of Bohol amounting to Php3,542,820.00.
The Facts
On January 6, 2010, the COA field office at the Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unit No. 7 (DA-RFU 7) issued the subject ND, disallowing the amount of Php3,542,820.00, representing the alleged overpriced value of Magnecrop Foliar liquid fertilizers purchased by KAMAMA under the Farm Inputs Program of the PDAF projects of the 2nd District of Bohol. The following were held liable for the transaction: several employees of the Department of Agriculture (DA), KAMAMA Foundation, its Associate Executive Director, and petitioner. Petitioner was held liable as he was found to have participated in the transaction, being the project proponent who endorsed KAMAMA Foundation as project implementer and who signed the Memorandum of Agreement between the DA and KAMAMA Foundation with a note, "With my conformity."
Petitioner appealed to COA-RO 7 but his appeal was denied. The Regional Director (RD) of COA-RO 7 found that petitioner actively participated in the implementation of the project: the project proposal submitted by KAMAMA Foundation to the DA-RFU 7 indicated that the implementation of the project was to be under a joint undertaking and approval of petitioner's office, and petitioner specifically identified the KAMAMA Foundation as the project implementer and undertook to monitor the delivery and distribution of the fertilizers to the identified farmer-beneficiaries, proving that petitioner has implied control over the project.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for review before the COA, which denied the petition and affirmed the COA-RO 7 decision. The COA found that petitioner directly participated in the project, as proven by: (1) petitioner's signatures appearing in his letter recommending KAMAMA Foundation and the MOA between the DA and the KAMAMA Foundation; (2) the declaration by the Assistant Executive Director of the KAMAMA Foundation in her project proposal that the project would be implemented jointly by petitioner's office and the KAMAMA Foundation; and (3) the Delivery Report and the Certificate of Acceptance, showing that petitioner's office staff received and accepted the fertilizers. Furthermore, the project proposal prepared by petitioner's office identified the municipalities and farmer-beneficiaries, as well as the quantity of liquid fertilizer to be purchased. In effect, there was already a pre-arranged transaction between petitioner and the KAMAMA Foundation, in violation of Republic Act No. 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied for failure to raise new matters to warrant reconsideration of the assailed decision.
Hence, this petition.
According to petitioner, the COA committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied his motion for reconsideration and when it failed to rule that he was denied due process when he was not furnished with copies of the documents upon which his alleged liability on the subject disallowed transaction hinges. Petitioner argues that the subject ND was not sufficiently supported by evidence, it being premised purely on undocumented claims as petitioner was denied access to the actual canvass sheets or price quotations from accredited suppliers. Petitioner also submits that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the assailed decision despite the presence of exculpating facts, evidence, and law which prove and support petitioner's lack of accountability and liability.
The OSG filed its Comment, 6 which was adopted as the comment for the other respondents. 7 The OSG mentioned that the decision assailed in this petition was the subject of an earlier petition docketed as G.R. No. 234132 (formerly UDK 15903), which this Court dismissed in its Resolution dated December 12, 2017 for petitioner's failure to sufficiently show that the COA committed any grave abuse of discretion, thus:
"The Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Commission on Audit committed any grave abuse of discretion in rendering the challenged decision and resolution which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence." 8
According to the OSG, at the time the earlier petition dated June 24, 2017 was filed, the assailed decision has not yet attained finality as petitioner's motion for reconsideration thereof was still pending before the COA. When petitioner received the assailed Resolution on November 27, 2017, he filed the instant petition, in effect re-filing his earlier petition that was previously dismissed.
As to the substantive matters, the OSG maintained that the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed decision as the same is in consonance with prevailing laws, rules and regulations, and established jurisprudence. According to the OSG, the COA correctly found that petitioner directly participated in the disallowed transaction as it took into consideration the totality of evidence and circumstances attendant to the subject transaction. As regards the prayer for injunctive relief, the OSG is of the position that petitioner failed to show a clear and unmistakable right to be entitled to an injunctive relief.
Petitioner filed his Reply, 9 reiterating that the COA acted in reckless disregard of its own rules and regulations, and violated his constitutional rights to due process in rendering the assailed decision and resolution.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is not meritorious.
The Court denies petitioner's prayer for TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction as he failed to establish his entitlement to such injunctive reliefs and to prove the urgency of their issuance to prevent grave and irreparable injury. 10
In its Comment, the OSG stated that the decision assailed in this petition was the subject of an earlier petition entitled Former Congressman Roberto C. Cajes v. Commission on Audit En Banc, et al., docketed as G.R. No. 234132 (formerly UDK 15903), which this Court dismissed in its Resolution dated December 12, 2017 for petitioner's failure to sufficiently show that COA committed any grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed decision. At the time petitioner filed his first petition assailing the COA's decision, petitioner's motion for reconsideration before the COA was still pending. Upon receipt of the COA resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed the instant petition, which the OSG characterized as a re-filing of the petition that was earlier dismissed by this Court.
We agree with the OSG that this petition is effectively a re-filing of the petition in G.R. No. 234132 which cannot be allowed because of res judicata.
The doctrine of res judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments lest there would be endless controversies. The relitigation of issues already settled burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier causes. 11
Rule 39, Section 47 (b) and (c) of the Rules of Court provides the doctrine and effect of res judicata:
SECTION 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgement or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
The foregoing provisions of Rule 39 were explained in Monterona v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.: 12
The above-quoted provision embraces two concepts of res judicata: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b); and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c). Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation differentiated between the two rules of res judicata:
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action. Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before the same or any other tribunal.
But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. x x x Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res judicata as "conclusiveness of judgment" applies.
All the elements of res judicata as a bar by prior judgment are present here.
First, the December 12, 2017 Resolution issued by this Court in G.R. No. 234132 became final and executory on July 23, 2019. 13
Second, the resolution was rendered by this Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
Third, the resolution dismissed the petition contesting the same COA decision subject of this case, as We found that the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed decision. Said resolution amounts to a judgment on the merits, even if it was an unsigned resolution. 14
Fourth, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between this case and G.R. No. 234132. Identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity; otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought, or by adopting a different method of presenting his case. 15 The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain the first and second cases, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. 16 If the same facts or evidence would sustain both actions, there is likely an identity of causes of action, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. 17 It cannot therefore be denied that G.R. No. 234132 is a final judgment with the effect of res judicata on this case.
Since G.R. No. 234132 amounts to res judicata on the instant petition, it follows that petitioner also committed forum shopping by filing this petition.
Forum shopping exists "when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court." To prove forum shopping, the following must be shown: "(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amounts to res judicata in the action under consideration." 18
The Court notes that petitioner did not mention in any of his pleadings nor in his Verification with Certification of Non-Forum Shopping appended to the present petition that there was already a final decision regarding the assailed decision. This Court's reminder regarding forum shopping in Zamora v. Quinan, Jr.19 is apt as petitioner and his lawyer seem to have forgotten the prohibition against forum shopping:
"This Court reminds the petitioner and his lawyer that forum shopping constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, to wreak havoc upon orderly juridical procedure, and to add to the congestion of the already burdened dockets of the courts. Further, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to foster candor and transparency between lawyers and their clients in appearing before the courts — to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing possibility of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue." 20
On the grounds of res judicata and forum shopping, therefore, the instant petition is dismissed. The Court does not find the need to discuss the other issues presented by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order filed by Former Congressman Roberto C. Cajes is DISMISSED." (adv10)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-34.
2. Signed by Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo, Commissioner Jose A. Fabia, and Commissioner Isabel D. Agito, id. at 41-48-A.
3.Id., at 39-40.
4. Signed by Regional Director Delfin P. Aguilar, id. at 126-133.
5. Signed by State Auditor IV Cymbeline Celia C. Chiong-Uy and State Auditor V Jose R. Desamparado, id. at 97-100.
6.Id., at 244-265.
7. See Manifestation dated April 22, 2019, filed by the OSG., id., at 278-280.
8.Id. at 245.
9.Id., at 301-312.
10. Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually:
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
11.City Government of Tacloban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 221554 (Resolution), February 3, 2021.
12. G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019, citing Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation, 441 Phil. 551-569 (2002).
13.Rollo (G.R. No. 234132 [Former Congressman Roberto C. Cajes v. Commission on Audit En Banc, et al.]) at 441.
14. See Wycoco v. Aquino, G.R. No. 237874, February 16, 2021, citing Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Resolution), 616 Phil. 387-420-421 [2009].
15. See Philippine College of Criminology, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 242486, June 10, 2020, citing Heirs of Arania v. Intestate Estate of Sangalang, 822 Phil. 643, 665 (2017), and Riviera Golf Club, Inc. v. CCA Holdings, B.V., 760 Phil. 655, 666 [2015].
16. See Philippine College of Criminology, Inc. v. Bautista, ibid.
17.Ibid.
18.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals (First Division), G.R. Nos. 210501, 211294 & 212490, March 15, 2021.
19. 821 Phil. 1009 (2017).
20.Id. at 1019-1020.