Crisologo v. Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the termination of Francisco Crisologo's employment as a patrolman in the Cebu City Police Department. Crisologo was appointed patrolman on July 2, 1946, and passed the civil service examination for the position on December 4, 1948. His services were terminated on October 16, 1953, due to the abolition of his salary item for the fiscal year 1953-1954, which led to the City Auditor and City Treasurer refusing to process his salary. 2. Procedural History: Crisologo was reinstated to his position on February 11, 1954, and resumed his duties on February 13, 1954. However, Rufino Abayan filed a quo warranto and mandamus action on April 26, 1954, challenging Crisologo's appointment and seeking his own reinstatement. The Court of First Instance of Cebu ruled in favor of Abayan on February 21, 1955, declaring Crisologo's appointment illegal and ordering Abayan's reinstatement. The Mayor complied with this judgment on March 17, 1955, terminating Crisologo's services again. 3. The Petition: Crisologo subsequently sought reinstatement to his former position, with his attorney writing to the Mayor on December 29, 1955, requesting this action. On January 10, 1956, Crisologo filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with damages in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. He challenged the legality of the abolition of his salary item and sought reinstatement. The lower court dismissed his petition, leading to this pauper's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant has a cause of action for reinstatement despite a prior final and executory judgment declaring his appointment illegal. Whether the abolition of the appellant's salary item was legal and valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissing the petition. The Court held that the appellant is barred from seeking reinstatement due to a prior judgment that declared his appointment illegal and ordered the reinstatement of Rufino Abayan, which judgment had become final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The appellant has no cause of action for reinstatement because he was previously reinstated to his position on February 11, 1954, and resumed his duties on February 13, 1954. However, his right to the office was contested by Rufino Abayan in case No. R-3508. The Court of First Instance of Cebu, in that case, rendered a judgment on February 21, 1955, holding that the appellant's appointment was illegal and ordering the reinstatement of Abayan. This judgment became final and executory. The Mayor complied with this judgment on March 17, 1955, by terminating the appellant's services. Since the appellant did not appeal from that prior judgment, he is now barred by the principle of res judicata from seeking reinstatement in the present proceedings. The issues decided in the prior case are considered settled and cannot be relitigated. On Issue 2: The legality and validity of the abolition of the appellant's salary item as patrolman in the Cebu City Police Department for the fiscal year 1953-1954 were implicitly upheld by the prior judgment in case No. R-3508, which declared the appellant's appointment illegal. The Court's compliance with the order to reinstate Abayan, after the abolition of the item, indicates that the prior judgment superseded any claim the appellant might have had based on the subsequent reinstatement or the re-instatement of the salary item. The appellant's attempt to seek reinstatement through the present petition, after the prior judgment became final and executory, is an attempt to relitigate issues already decided, which is impermissible.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a petition for prohibition and mandamus, holding that the petitioner, having been previously removed from his position pursuant to a final and executory court judgment declaring his appointment illegal, was barred from seeking reinstatement. The Court emphasized that once a judgment becomes final, the issues therein are settled and cannot be relitigated, and that compliance with such a judgment by the appointing authority is mandatory.