Philippine Postal Corporation vs. CA, GR No.

173590

Digested by Victor Francis Divino O. Fernandez

Facts: An anonymous complaint was lodged against Crisanto de Guzman, Postal Inspector of the Postal
Service Office (PPO) for charges of dishonesty, grossly prejudicial conduct to the best interest of the
service. He was investigated by Regional Postal Inspector Atty Raul Q. Buensalida and thenceforth
recommended that De Guzman be charged with twelve (12) counts of the aforesaid offenses and be
preventively suspended as he has the propensity to harass and intimidate postal employees and
witnesses against him.

Atty Buensalida forwarded his report to the Department of Transportation and Communication
(DOTC)’s Investigation Security and Law Enforcement Staff (ISLES) since the PPO is under the DOTC as a
line agency. ISLES further evaluated the report and acted contrary to Atty Buensalida’s findings and
issued a Memorandum on Feb 26, 1990 by Director Antonio V. Reyes exonerating De Guzman from all
the charges against the latter due to lack of merit. Eventually, the recommendation was approved by
DOTC Assistant Secretary Tagumpay Jardiniano through another issued Memorandum.

In the meantime, Republic Act 7354 (RA 7354) or the “Postal Service Act of 1992” was passed on
Feb 6, 1992 whereby PPO under the DOTC was effectively abolished and creating the Philippine Postal
Corporation (PPC) by which the PPO shall be transferred thereto, and PPO employees correspondingly
shall be absorbed by the PPC.

Under Postmaster General Eduardo Pilapil; De Guzman, who is now a Chief Postal Service
Officer, was again charged with the same violation in addition to violations of the Anti-Graft law. The
result is De Guzman was found guilty and was dismissed from service as stated in their quasi-judicial
decision to wit: “in the interest of the service, it is directed that this Decision be implemented
immediately.” Though the execution for the aforesaid Decision only was implemented until Aug 17,
1999, 5 years after the Decision under Regional Director Mama S. Lalanto’s directive.

Aggrieved, De Guzman immediately filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) with a contention
that the Decision of then Postmaster General Pilapil was recalled allegedly on Aug 29, 1994 by Pilapil
himself and the Decision was not implemented and took five (5) years to be executed, thus lapsed and
cannot be revived without another formal charge against the former.

The MR was denied in a Resolution since De Guzman failed to produce a copy of the Recall
Order. Unperturbed, he again filed for a 2nd MR whereby his contention was granted and was given
another hearing to be conducted as soon as possible. Eventually, he was found guilty of the charges
against him and dismissed from service. Then he again filed for an MR and appealed to the Board of
Directors (BOD) of the PPC.

It was pointed out that filing for a 3rd MR was a gross violation of the Rules of Procedure
recognized by the PPC and the CSC. While De Guzman alleges that the Decision of Director Reyes and
DOTC Assistant Secretary Jardiniano was already in Res Judicata, it was decided that the exoneration of
the fact-finding body has no judicial nor quasi-judicial power but only recommendations of the
investigative body.
 De Guzman elevated the case as a Special Civil Action for Certiorari and Mandamus to the
Court of Appeals (CA) charging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
since the case is just a mere rehash of the previous complaint dismissed under the auspices of the DOTC
and contends the same violation of the Res Judicata principle. He concurrently appealed the Decision
before the PPC Board and was denied appeal and MR denied in their latest Resolution. Eventually, CA
reversed the PPC resolutions and decided that indeed it was a grave abuse of discretion that there is
clear and unequivocal substance in the Memoradum of ASec Jardiniano that the complaint against De
Guzman was already dismissed. PPC pleaded for an MR in the CA but was denied, thus elevated the
case to the Supreme Court.

Issues: (a) Did De Guzman fail to exhaust administrative remedies available to him?

(b) Did De Guzman engage is forum-shopping?

(c) Did the recommendation of the DOTC, through the ISLES, bars subsequent filing of
complaint by the PPC against De Guzman?

Ruling: The Petition of the PPC is found to be Meritorious.

(a) De Guzman failed to exhaust administrative remedies since it was premature to file a
certiorari case before the CA. He should have filed an appeal with the PPC Board instead or
an appeal to the CSC which is the prescribed remedies for due process pursuant to Section
2(a), Rule II of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures of the PPC, as the BOD may remove
officials under the PPC but appealable in the CSC and CSC has jurisdiction to all employees
under government including Government Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) and
sole arbiter of controversies relevant to Civil Service [Olanda vs Bugayong, 491 Phil 626, 632
(2003)]. Since PPC is a GOCC under RA 7354 with its own Charter, an appeal to the PPC BOD
can be sought after thenceforth to the CSC. It is premature for De Guzman to file a Petition
for Certiorari and Mandamus in the CA while he should have exhausted available remedies
in the PPC and the CSC, thus CA should have dismissed the said petition (Jose vs Javellana,
GR 158239 Jan 25, 2012).
(b) Pursuing two (2) separate remedies, one in the CA and another in the PPC is clearly a
strategy of forum shopping (Young vs Sy, 534 Phil 246 (2006). He violated the Certification
he made in the CA that he shall undertake a report within five (5) days to the CA if he finds
another cause of action or proceeding being undertaken in the SC, CA, or any quasi-judicial
agency or tribunal (which he actually caused to file in the PPC BOD). He failed to disclose
that his CA appeal yielded in favor of his contention while CSC is still resolving the same
issue on Res Judicata!
(c) ISLES through the DOTC, indeed merely performs investigations intended precisely for the
purpose of determining whether or not a prima facie case against De Guzman existed. While
a recommendation of insufficiency of evidence was found by this agency and the complaint
against De Guzman was dismissed by Asst Secretary Jardiniano, can De Guzman invoke the
principle of Res Judicata in this instance? In noting the requisites of Res Judicata one may
surmise that the Judgment on its merits must be final, the Court issuing the Judgment has
jurisdiction on the subject matter and opposing parties, the identity of parties, subject
matter and cause of action is established. Perusing the Instant Case, one can determine that
there was actually no judgment on the merits and the dismissal of the complaint by ASec
Jardiniano was just a Recommendation based on the outputs gathered from a fact-finding
investigation determining the presence of a prima facie case and whether formal charges
should be filed against De Guzman. Since such is not a judgment on the merits, the doctrine
of Res Judicata does not apply. Thus, SC decided that PPC did not gravely abuse its
discretion and grants the Petition, reinstates PPC’s decision with finality and reverses and
sets aside CA’s decision.