THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 191958. February 21, 2018.]
CELSO GALICINAO, petitioner,vs. ARNOLD BAUTISTA, respondent.
[G.R. No. 192462. February 21, 2018.]
CELSO GALICINAO, petitioner,vs. ARNOLD BAUTISTA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 21, 2018, which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. Nos. 191958 (Celso Galicinao, petitioner v. Arnold Bautista, respondent) and 192462 (Celso Galicinao, petitioner v. Arnold Bautista, respondent) — We resolve the petition for review on certiorari of Celso Galicinao (Galicinao) assailing the 28 October 2009 Decision 1 and the 14 May 2010 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107613 on his alleged illegal dismissal from government service.
On 18 March 2008, Arnold Bautista (Bautista) filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22 of Cabagan, Isabela, docketed as S.C.A. No. 22-1090, against Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office No. 2 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. 3 Bautista's petition challenged the 28 February 2003 and the 14 February 2008 decisions of the CSC Regional Office in CSCRO2 Non-Disc. No. 03-006 and CSCRO2 Non-Disc. No. DMR-2008-002, respectively, for being issued without jurisdiction. 4 The CSC, in the challenged decisions, ordered the incumbent mayor of Tumauini, Isabela, to reinstate Galicinao as municipal engineer and to pay back the salaries and other benefits that he was entitled to.
In turn, Galicinao filed a motion to dismiss praying that Bautista's petition be dismissed because he failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies in assailing the CSC Regional Office's decisions. 5 In his supplemental motion, Galicinao added that Bautista should not have initiated certiorari proceedings before the trial court since the CSC is a quasi-judicial agency; instead, he should have filed his petition before the CA. 6
On 22 September 2008, the trial court issued an order denying Galicinao's motion to dismiss, to wit:
The court does not agree with the stand of [Galicinao] that there is a necessity for the exhaustion of administrative remedies, particularly appeal to the Civil Service Commission proper, before the petition for certiorari may prosper. As had been pointed out by [Bautista], and with which the court agrees, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies will not hold true if the action instituted involves a legal question, the latter necessarily including the question of jurisdiction for the same is determined by law.
In the present petition for certiorari, it is plain and apparent, that the petitioner has raised the issue of the lack of jurisdiction of the public respondents to issue their questioned orders. As early as in the comments of the [Bautista] to the complaint of [Galicinao], and which is clearly raised as a ground for the Motion for Reconsideration of [Bautista] of the Order of the public respondent Bienvenida L. Ragucos, dated February 28, 2003, [Bautista] assailed the jurisdiction of the public respondents over the complaint filed by [Galicinao]. It appears from the allegations in the petition that there is a clear allegation of lack of jurisdiction, which thus brings the case within the competence of this court, through the medium of an action for certiorari pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
On the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, this court is of the firm belief that it has validly assumed jurisdiction over the petition, [Bautista] having opted to invoke its concurrent jurisdiction over the petition. Accordingly, there is no further ground for the dismissal of the case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss as well as the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, are hereby ordered DENIED for lack of merit. 7
After the trial court denied his motion for reconsideration, on 20 February 2009, Galicinao filed through registered mail his own petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the CA. 8 Previously, however, Galicinao had already filed his answer with counterclaims with the trial court as early as 7 January 2009. 9
In the assailed decision, the CA sustained the denial of Galicinao's motion to dismiss saying that there was no need for Bautista to exhaust any administrative remedies because Galicinao had filed a certificate of candidacy during the pendency of his complaint for illegal dismissal. According to the CA, pursuant to Section 66, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code, any person holding a public appointive office or position shall be considered ipso facto resigned from office upon the filing of a certificate of candidacy. The CA noted that prior to the resolution of Galicinao's complaint, he had filed a certificate of candidacy for the May 2004 elections. In doing so, he is deemed to have abandoned his claim to the office he was severed from. 10
Henceforth, the CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss. 11
Meanwhile, the proceedings before the trial court continued. After both parties submitted their respective memoranda, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of Bautista on 28 December 2009. In nullifying the CSC decisions, the trial court held that the CSC Regional Office overstepped the limits of their authority, having acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. 12 The trial court explained that the CSC's act of giving due course to the complaint was tantamount to acting in excess of jurisdiction because Galicinao's action was filed beyond the allowed period:
The questioned decision of public respondent Director III Bienvenida L. Ragucos and order of public respondent Imelda G. Abueg both emanated from and were rendered in connection with the complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Reinstatement which was filed on July 8, 2002, assailing and questioning the letter/order dated September 19, 2001 dropping [Galicinao] from the rolls as municipal engineer. Evidently shown by the record, the appeal from the order dropping [Galicinao] from the rolls, was filed with the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. 2 beyond the fifteen-day period allowed under Section 72 and accordingly brought into operation the provisions of Section 74 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service Commission which states: aDSIHc
Section 74. Grounds for Dismissal. — An appeal involving no-disciplinary cases shall be dismissed on any of the following grounds:
a) The appeal is filed beyond the reglementary period;
xxx xxx xxx
There is no doubt that the public respondents both committed a clear abuse of discretion, tantamount to acting in excess of jurisdiction, in giving due course to the complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Reinstatement, by issuing the assailed Decision dated February 28, 2003 and Order dated February 14, 2008. 13 x x x
On 9 June 2010, after his motion for reconsideration was denied, Galicinao filed a petition for review on certiorari directly before this Court contesting the decision of the trial court to nullify the CSC decisions. 14 This petition, docketed as G.R. No. 191958, was eventually denied on 4 August 2010 for being the wrong mode of appeal. 15
On the other hand, after the CA denied Galicinao's motion for reconsideration in the certiorari proceedings before it, he filed the present petition on 26 July 2010 docketed as G.R. No. 192462. On 29 September 2010, this petition was consolidated with G.R. No. 191958, and Bautista was required to file his comment. 16
On 20 October 2010, Galicinao's motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 191958 was denied with finality. 17 The corresponding entry of judgment was entered on 3 January 2012. 18 Despite this, and even if the instant case had already been consolidated with G.R. No. 191958, the Court continued to give due course to the present petition.
OUR RULING
We find no cogent reason to reverse the CA for the following reasons:
First. The instant petition seeks to reverse the decision of the CA that affirmed the trial court's denial of Galicinao's motion to dismiss. Without having to go through the merits of the present petition, it would be absurd to reverse the lower court's unanimous denial on the motion to dismiss when there had already been a final and executory decision on the merits. When a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine of immutability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice, thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. 19
In the instant case, the trial court's decision to annul the CSC decisions had attained finality on 3 January 2012. Without going through the merits of the petition, the present petition is already barred by this final decision, thus, res judicata has set in.
The judgment or final order has the effect of res judicata between the parties. An aspect of res judicata is conclusiveness of judgment or when the judgment or final order precludes the re-litigation of particular issues or facts on a different demand or cause of action. 20 By force of res judicata, a final judgment is conclusive not only on matters or issues directly or actually determined by the decision but also on all issues that could have been raised or litigated in the anterior suit. 21
To recall, both the trial court's order on the motion to dismiss and its decision on Bautista's petition for certiorari deal with the issue on Bautista seeking extraordinary judicial recourse from the CSC decisions. Both rulings had to deal with the CSC's jurisdiction and whether said body properly exercised its jurisdiction or exercised it with grave abuse of discretion. Arguably, Galicinao raised in his motion that Bautista had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before he filed his petition for certiorari with the trial court. However, in its decision on the merits of Bautista's petition, regardless whether he complied with the condition in exhausting administrative remedies, the trial court ultimately ruled that the CSC had no jurisdiction in Galicinao's complaint because it was filed way out of time. In the end, if we were to reverse the denial of Galicinao's motion to dismiss based on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, the decision that the CSC had no jurisdiction remains since it had already attained finality.
Second. It is basic knowledge that the proper remedy when a motion to dismiss is denied is not a petition for certiorari. The proper remedies against a denial of a motion to dismiss would be as a rule: to file an answer and go through the usual trial process; and, later, to file a timely appeal from an adverse judgment. An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case, as it leaves the court to do something before the case is finally decided on the merits. In order to justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the denial of the motion to dismiss must have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 22
We take note of the fact that Galicinao filed an answer after his motion to dismiss was denied and before he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. By doing so, he is estopped from seeking the extraordinary writ of certiorari because he had submitted to and had recognized the jurisdiction of the trial court to proceed in resolving Bautista's petition. If indeed he believed that the trial court went beyond its jurisdiction by denying the motion to dismiss, he should not have filed an answer nor participated in the certiorari proceedings before the trial court.
All said, the present petition is thereby denied.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari, and AFFIRM the 28 October 2009 Decision and the 14 May 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107613. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (G.R. No. 192462), pp. 22-37; penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of the Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Marlene Gonzales-Sison.
2.Id. at 46-47.
3.Id. at 51-83.
4.Id. at 84-92.
5.Id. at 93-98.
6.Id. at 99-100.
7.Id. at 101-102; penned by Judge Felipe Jesus Torio II.
8.Id. at 117-133. On 18 June 2009, the CA denied Galicinao's prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or injunction.
9.Id. at 107-116.
10.Id. at 34-35.
11.Id. at 36.
12.Rollo (G.R. No. 191958), p. 33.
13.Id. at 35-36.
14.Id. at 18-28.
15.Id. at 126.
16.Rollo (G.R. No. 192462), pp. 182-183.
17.Id. at 209.
18.Rollo (G.R. No. 191958), p. 139.
19.Marcos v. Pamintuan, 654 Phil. 626, 634 (2011).
20.San Pedro v. Binalay, 505 Phil. 168, 175 (2005).
21.Id.
22.Lu Ym v. Nabua, 492 Phil. 397, 404 (2005).