A.M. No. RTJ-96-217, February 17, 1997
Atty. Manuel F. Concepcion, Petitioner, vs. Atty. Jesus V. Agana and Hon. Judge Erasto Salcedo RTC Branch 31, Tagum, Davao del Norte (Atty. Salcedo), Respondents.

FACTS

The complaint, filed by Atty. Manuel F. Concepcion on August 5, 1996, seeks the dismissal from service of respondent Judge Erasto Salcedo for alleged dishonest and deceitful conduct committed while he was still a practicing lawyer. The complainant alleged that Judge Salcedo, then Atty. Salcedo, connived with his co-respondent, Atty. Jesus Agana, to cause the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens to the prejudice of his former clients, whom he had been discharged from representing and who were then represented by complainant Concepcion. The complaint involves a dispute over a parcel of land, Lot 3047, originally occupied by farmers represented by Helen Balani.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) observed that the instant complaint is a mere rehash of a prior disbarment complaint docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312, entitled “Landless Farmers Tribal Development, Inc. represented by Helen Balani vs. Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty. Erasto Salcedo,” which the Court had already dismissed for utter lack of merit on May 15, 1995. That prior case itself was found to involve the same subject matter and issues as an even earlier administrative case, Administrative Case No. 4040 against Atty. Agana, which was dismissed on October 13, 1993.

ISSUE

Whether the present administrative complaint against Judge Salcedo and Atty. Agana is barred by the prior judgment in A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312.

RULING

Yes, the complaint is barred by the principle of “bar by former judgment” or res judicata. The Court dismissed the instant complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic is clear: for res judicata to apply, there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the prior and present cases.
First, there is identity of parties. Although the present complainant is Atty. Manuel Concepcion (counsel for Helen Balani) and the prior case was filed by Helen Balani herself, the requirement of identity is satisfied because there is privity between them. Privity exists where a party represents the same legal right as a party to the prior judgment. Here, Atty. Concepcion acts as legal representative for the same interests Balani represented.
Second, there is identity of subject matter and causes of action. A comparative study by the OCA, reproduced in the decision, demonstrates that the allegations in both complaints are substantially identical, revolving around the same land dispute and the same alleged acts of connivance to cancel the lis pendens. The test is whether the same evidence would support both causes of action, which it would. The mere change in the form of the action—from a disbarment complaint to one seeking dismissal from the judiciary—does not preclude the application of res judicata.
Therefore, the Court’s final dismissal of A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312 on the merits in 1995 operates as a bar to the relitigation of the same issues. The Court advised Atty. Concepcion to be more solicitous in filing such complaints to avoid wasting the Court’s time.