GR 96004; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96004 February 21, 1992
JOSE O. TEODORO and ESPERANZA ZACARIAS, petitioners, vs. HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, as Incumbent Secretary of Budget and Management, and MESSRS. ALBERTO ROMULO and MANUEL ALBA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, retired Foreign Service officers, claimed terminal leave benefits for unused leave credits earned abroad. Their claims, computed in US dollars at a fixed exchange rate of P2.00 to US$1.00 based on pre-1978 rules, were approved by the Commission on Audit and endorsed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for payment. However, the respondent Budget Secretary, citing a 1983 joint order, refused to authorize payment at that rate. Instead, he released a lesser amount computed by converting the dollar value of the leave credits at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of their respective retirements. This prompted petitioners to file an initial Petition for Mandamus (G.R. No. 70242), which the Supreme Court dismissed via a Resolution dated March 26, 1987. Motions for reconsideration were subsequently denied, making the dismissal final.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the instant Petition for Review, which essentially seeks to annul the final and executory resolutions in G.R. No. 70242, based on claims of grave abuse of discretion by the Budget Secretary and alleged discriminatory payment to other retirees.
RULING
The petition is barred by res judicata. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of res judicata applies with finality to the case. The present petition ( G.R. No. 96004 ) and the previously dismissed case (G.R. No. 70242) involve an identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action—all concerning the propriety of the exchange rate used to compute petitioners’ terminal leave pay. The Court’s Resolution of March 26, 1987, in the earlier case, constitutes a final adjudication on the merits. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The Court cannot reopen or relitigate the same issue. Petitioners’ attempt to recast their arguments, including the new allegation of discriminatory treatment, does not negate the application of res judicata, as this could have been raised in the prior proceedings. The principle of finality of judgment is indispensable to the orderly administration of justice, and no supervening event was presented to warrant an exception. Thus, the petition was denied.