G.R. No. L-10922; January 23, 1958
Gregorio P. de Guzman, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Jose B. Ramoso, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Gregorio P. de Guzman, a civil service eligible, was appointed Assistant Sanitary Inspector of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, by the Municipal Council. On March 25, 1955, Jose B. Ramoso, as officer in charge of the Provincial Health Office, issued Special Order No. 3 assigning de Guzman to Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija. De Guzman refused the transfer, claiming it was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and equivalent to removal. He was prevented from working in San Jose and did not receive his salary. Ramoso filed charges for insubordination. In November 1955, de Guzman filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 1970) in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, seeking damages, back salaries from April 1, 1955, reinstatement to his San Jose post, and to enjoin Ramoso from investigating him. The lower court, by order of January 6, 1956, dismissed the petition but ruled the assignment to Pantabangan was temporary, lasting only during the regular incumbent’s absence and not exceeding 30 days. The court found Ramoso acted within his supervisory powers for the good of the service. De Guzman’s motion for reconsideration was denied; he did not appeal. He had already been ordered back to San Jose and collected his salary from December 8-31, 1955. On February 6, 1956, de Guzman filed the present action, making the same allegations and seeking the same remedies, including back salaries from April 1 to December 7, 1955. Ramoso moved to dismiss on the ground of res adjudicata. After a preliminary hearing, the trial court dismissed the case on March 13, 1956, based on res adjudicata. De Guzman appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the present action is barred by the principle of res adjudicata due to the unappealed order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 1970.

RULING

Yes. The order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 1970, which became final due to de Guzman’s failure to appeal, bars the present action under the principle of res adjudicata. Although the earlier case was dismissed, the rights of the parties were adjudicated on the merits based on the manifestations, admissions, and evidence. The trial court in that case held that de Guzman could not be permanently transferred, that the assignment to Pantabangan was temporary and within Ramoso’s powers as acting District Health Officer, that Ramoso acted in good faith, and that de Guzman was not entitled to the damages or back salaries claimed. Therefore, the present action, which raises the same claims and seeks the same remedies, is barred. The order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed.