G.R. No. 187317 - Encinas vs. Agustin

March 11, 2000: Petitioner allegedly told Agustin and Caubang that they must pay ₱5,000 or face reassignment from Cabanatuan City to far-flung stations (Cuyapo, Talugtug).
March 15, 2000: Respondents paid only ₱2,000 and were instructed to deliver the balance.
Upon non-payment of the balance, formal reassignment orders were issued.

March 27, 2000: Respondents filed a letter complaint with the BFP alleging illegal transfer under RA 6975; docketed for preliminary investigation under RA 3019.
April 12 and 25, 2000: Joint complaint filed with CSC Regional Office (CSCRO) for violation of RA 6713.
October 27, 2000: Petitioner was formally charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service (Administrative Code, Sec. 46(b)(1), (4), (27)).

July 5, 2005 (BFP Internal Audit Service Resolution): Recommended dismissal of administrative complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
July 30, 2004 (CSCRO Decision): Found petitioner administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; ordered dismissal. Motion for reconsideration denied May 19, 2006.
May 19, 2008 (CSC Resolution): Affirmed CSCRO; held no forum-shopping and affirmed liability.
November 20, 2008 (Court of Appeals Decision): Denied petition; upheld absence of required certification of non-forum-shopping when proper disciplining authority files the formal charge, and affirmed substantial evidence of extortion.
March 30, 2009 (CA Resolution): Denied motion for reconsideration.

Whether respondents committed forum-shopping by filing complaints with both the BFP and the CSC.
Whether substantial evidence supports petitioner’s administrative liability for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Res judicata requires a final, meritorious judgment by a competent tribunal; the BFP resolution was a preliminary, fact-finding investigation, not a quasi-judicial decision on the merits.
The CSCRO complaint and BFP preliminary probe were based on different causes of action (RA 6713 vs. RA 6975/RA 3019).
No identity of cause or relief and no judgment on the merits at the BFP stage; thus, no forum-shopping.

Administrative fact-finding and hearings by CSCRO and CSC, as affirmed by the CA, carry deference in the absence of grave abuse or lack of substantial evidence.
Respondents’ consistent, cross-examined testimonies established that petitioner demanded ₱5,000 in exchange for non-reassignment.
Witnesses for petitioner addressed only respondents’ allege

Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court, assailing:
- Decision dated 20 November 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104074.
- Resolution dated 30 March 2009 of the same court denying reconsideration.
Civil Service Commission (CSC) earlier affirmed CSC Regional Office (CSCRO) and dismissed BFP’s preliminary findings.

Petitioner served as Provincial Fire Marshall of Nueva Ecija.
Respondents Agustin and Caubang were Fire Officer I’s stationed in Cabanatuan City.
On 11 March 2000, petitioner allegedly demanded ₱5,000 from each respondent to prevent their transfer to remote stations (Cuyapo and Talugtug).
Respondents paid only ₱2,000 on 15 March 2000; balance remained unpaid.
Upon failure to pay the remaining ₱3,000, petitioner ordered their reassignment.

27 March 2000: Letter-complaint to Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) under R.A. 6975 (illegal transfer) but docketed under R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft).
12 & 25 April 2000: Joint Affidavit/Complaint to CSCRO alleging violation of Section 4(A)(c), R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct).

27 October 2000: Formal Charge lodged for:
- Dishonesty (Sec. 46(b)(1), EO 292).
- Grave misconduct (Sec. 46(b)(4), EO 292).
- Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service (Sec. 46(b)(27), EO 292).
Petitioner given five days to answer under oath, elect investigation mode, and present evidence.

Confidential Investigation Report (31 July 2000, not in record) allegedly recommended dropping charges against petitioner.
05 July 2005: BFP’s Internal Audit Services Resolution dismissed administrative complaint for insufficiency of evidence, citing legitimate reassignment authority.

30 July 2004: CSCRO Decision found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and
...continue reading