G.R. No. 83369 October 2, 1992
PACITA J. BAGUIORO, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIANO Y. BASA, JR., Presiding Judge, Branch 56, Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, San Carlos City, and ROMEO ESPINOSA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pacita J. Baguiro and private respondent Romeo Espinosa were both considered for promotion to the position of General Education Supervisor I (Music and Arts) in the Schools Division of San Carlos City in April 1982. The Division Promotion Board and later the Regional Promotion Board recommended petitioner’s appointment. In November 1983, the Regional Director reversed this and appointed private respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Minister of the MECS (now DECS). Due to delay, petitioner filed a petition for Quo Warranto (Civil Case No. 076) in the RTC, which was dismissed on the ground of prescription. Pending her motion for reconsideration, MECS Minister Jaime C. Laya, concurring with a Complaints Committee report, affirmed the earlier regional decision favoring petitioner, and her appointment was prepared. The RTC subsequently denied petitioner’s motion, deeming the case moot.
Private respondent then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 73915 ) seeking to annul Minister Laya’s actions. The Supreme Court dismissed this petition for lack of merit in a Resolution dated June 11, 1986, and denied reconsideration with finality on April 8, 1987.
Subsequently, on January 28, 1988, private respondent filed a complaint for Quo Warranto with Injunction and Damages (Civil Case No. 162) in the RTC against the DECS officials and petitioner, seeking to annul the same administrative rulings. Petitioner moved to dismiss on grounds of res judicata, prescription, and lack of cause of action. Respondent Judge Mariano Basa, Jr. denied the motion, ruling that Civil Case No. 076 was not a judgment on the merits and thus res judicata did not apply, and that the cause of action had not prescribed. Petitioner filed the instant special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 162 on the grounds of res judicata and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition.
1. The principle of res judicata bars Civil Case No. 162. The essential requisites are present: (a) the Supreme Court’s Resolution in G.R. No. 73915 dismissing private respondent’s petition is final; (b) it was rendered by a court with jurisdiction; (c) it is a judgment on the merits, as a minute resolution of dismissal for lack of merit constitutes an adjudication on the merits after evaluation of the facts, issues, and arguments; and (d) there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between G.R. No. 73915 and Civil Case No. 162. Private respondent cannot re-litigate the same issues already settled by the Supreme Court. His act of filing Civil Case No. 162 after an adverse Supreme Court ruling also constitutes forum-shopping.
2. The complaint in Civil Case No. 162 fails to state a cause of action due to private respondent’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. A party aggrieved by a promotion should first protest through the administrative hierarchy, appealing from the department head to the Merit Systems Protection Board and, where applicable, to the Civil Service Commission. Private respondent did not complete this process before resorting to the courts. A dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is tantamount to a dismissal for lack of cause of action.
The Order of respondent Judge dated April 26, 1988, is SET ASIDE and Civil Case No. 162 is ordered DISMISSED.