Notes Ligtas v. People
Notes Ligtas v. People
Notes Ligtas v. People
LEONEN, J.:
Res judicata applies also in administrative cases- the rule which forbids the reopening
of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the
judicial and quasi-judicial facts of public, executive or administrative o cers and
boards acting within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general
judicial powers.
Facts:
Ligtas was charged with the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code for unlawfully and feloniously harvesting 1,000 kilos of abaca bers, valued at
Php29,000.00 at Php29.00 per kilo, without the consent of said owner, Anecita Pacate.
The DARAB rendered the Decision ruling that Ligtas was a bona de tenant of the
land.While records are bereft as to when the DARAB Decision was formally o ered as
evidence before the trial court, records are clear that the DARAB Decision was
considered by both the trial court and Court of Appeals and without any objection on
the part of the People of the Philippines. The Regional Trial Court held that the
prosecution was able to prove the elements of theft and held Ligtas guilty thereof. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals a rmed the trial Court. The Court of Appeals declared
that Ligtas' reliance on the DARAB Decision declaring him as a bona de tenant of the
land is irrelevant in the case at bar. Hence, this case.
Issue:
Whether or not DARAB Decision, nding petitioner Monico Ligtas as tenant of the land
owned by private complainant is conclusive or can be taken judicial notice of in a
criminal case for theft
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that in this case, the ndings of the DARAB were
supported by substantial evidence. Generally, decisions in administrative cases are
not binding on criminal proceedings. However, this case does not involve an
administrative charge stemming from the
same set of facts involved in a criminal proceeding. Signi cantly, respondent did not
appeal the Decision of the DARAB; consequently, the same has attained nality and
constitutes res judicata on the issue of petitioner's status as a tenant of respondent.
Res judicata is a concept applied in the review of lower court decisions in accordance
with the hierarchy of courts. But jurisprudence has also recognized the rule of
administrative res judicata: The rule which forbids the reopening of a matter once
judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-
judicial facts of public, executive or administrative o cers and boards acting within
their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general judicial powers. Res
judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as
enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2)
conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c).There is "bar by prior judgment"
when, as between the rst case where the judgment was rendered and the second
case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes
of action. In this instance, the judgment in the rst case constitutes an absolute bar to
the second action. But where there is identity of parties in the rst and second cases,
but no identity of causes of action, the rst judgment is conclusive only as to those
matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters
merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness
of judgment." Stated di erently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated
or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in
which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment
therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or
not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions
is the same.
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must
be nal; (2) the
decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the
merits; and (4) there must be as between the rst and second action, identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a
"bar by prior judgment" would apply. If as between the two cases, only identity of
parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res judicata as
"conclusiveness of judgment" applies. In the DARAB, there being no appeal
interposed therefrom, attained nality. Accordingly, the matter regarding the status of
Ligtas as a tenant farmer and the validity of the CLT and Emancipation Patents issued
in his favor are settled and no longer open to doubt and controversy.
CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
____________________
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Trial Court (RTC) are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court
(SC) when affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).·Only questions
conclusive
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
3
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 3
Ligtas vs. People
LEONEN, J.:
_______________
_______________
upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm
products.
8 Id., at p. 93.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id., at pp. 93-98.
_______________
10
_______________
32 Id., at p. 100.
33 Id., at p. 49A. Per the testimonies of the witnesses before the trial
court and as adopted by the Court of Appeals, the „Kasabutan‰ or
Agreement dated February 24, 2007 was previously executed between
Ligtas and Anecita Pacate. The Agreement involved another incident of
theft committed by Ligtas against Anecita Pacate. He was also charged
with theft in 1988; however, the case was ultimately dismissed (id., at pp.
18-19, 37, 40, 41-43, 46-47, and 49).
34 Id., at p. 109.
11
_______________
35 Id., at p. 101.
36 Id., at pp. 101-103.
37 Id., at p. 104.
38 Id., citing Cornes v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., 582 Phil. 528,
552; 560 SCRA 545, 571 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
39 Id., at p. 108.
40 Id.
12
_______________
41 Id., at p. 105.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Id., at pp. 105-106.
45 Id., at p. 106.
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Id., at pp. 107-108.
49 Id., at p. 107.
50 Id., at p. 108.
13
II
On April 4, 2012, Ligtas filed this Petition assailing the
Court of AppealsÊ Decision and Resolution.55 This court
required People of the Philippines to file its Comment on
the Petition within 10 days from notice.56
_______________
51 Id., at p. 109.
52 Id.
53 Id., at pp. 112-115.
54 Id., at pp. 118-119.
55 Id., at p. 21. Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review for 30 days dated March 2, 2012 (id., at pp. 2-4),
which the court granted (id., at p. 122).
56 Id., at p. 122. The Resolution was dated March 4, 2013.
Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its
Comment on June 27, 2013 (id., at pp. 128-143). In the Resolution (id., at
p. 145) dated August 14, 2013, this court noted the Comment and
required petitioner to file a Reply to the Comment. Petitioner filed his
Reply (id., at pp. 147-149) dated October 14, 2013, which we noted on
January 15, 2014 (id., at p. 152). In the Resolution (id., at pp. 165-167)
dated July 14, 2014, this court gave due course to the petition and
required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda within 30
days from notice. PetitionerÊs Memorandum (id., at pp. 184-201) dated
October 8, 2014 was posted on October 10, 2014 (id., at p. 184). Re-
14
III
_______________
15
_______________
60 See People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668
SCRA 827, 844-845 [Per J. Sereno (now CJ.), Second Division].
61 Ruiz v. People, 512 Phil. 127, 135; 475 SCRA 476, 484-485 (2005)
[Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division], quoting Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, 425 Phil. 752, 765-766; 375 SCRA 145, 154 (2002) [Per
CJ. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
62 Rollo, p. 190.
16
_______________
17
VOL. 767, AUGUST 17, 2015 17
Ligtas vs. People
IV
_______________
67 Rollo, p. 33.
68 Id., at pp. 194-195.
69 Id., at p. 195.
70 Id., at p. 196.
71 Id., at p. 191.
72 Id.
73 Id., at pp. 193-194.
74 Id., at p. 194.
18
_______________
75 Id., at p. 192.
76 Id., at p. 177.
77 Id., at p. 178.
78 Id., at p. 179.
79 Id., at pp. 179-180.
80 Id., at p. 180.
81 Id., at p. 178.
19
82 Paredes v. Court of Appeals, 555 Phil. 538, 549-550; 528 SCRA 577,
587-589 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
20
In fine, this board found plaintiff a bona fide tenant of the land
in question and as such is entitled to a security of tenure, in which
case he shall not be dispossessed of his holdings by the landowner
except for any of the causes provided by law and only after the same
has been proved before, and the dispossession is authorized by the
Court and in the judgment that is final and executory[.]83 (Citations
omitted)
_______________
83 Rollo, p. 33.
84 Id., at pp. 33-34.
21
_______________
22
_______________
23
_______________
24
_______________
25
_______________
26
_______________
27
ents. The same effect is sought with the institution of DARAB Case
No. 512-Bul Â94, which is an action to withdraw and/or cancel
administratively the CLT and Emancipation Patents issued to
petitioner. Considering that DARAB Case 062-Bul Â89 has attained
finality prior to the filing of DARAB Case No. 512-Bul Â94, no
strenuous legal interpretation is necessary to understand that the
issues raised in the prior case, i.e., DARAB Case No. 062-Bul Â89,
which have been resolved with finality, may not be litigated anew.
The instant case is complicated by the failure of the complainant
to include Martillano as party-defendant in the case before the
adjudication board and the DARAB, although he was finally
impleaded on appeal before the Court of Appeals.
The belated inclusion of Martillano as respondent in the petition
will not affect the applicability of the doctrine of bar by prior
judgment. What is decisive is that the issues which have already
been litigated in a final and executory judgment precludes, by the
principle of bar by prior judgment, an aspect of the doctrine of res
judicata, and even under the doctrine of „law of the case,‰ the re-
litigation of the same issue in another action. It is well established
that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by
a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it
should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them.
The dictum therein laid down became the law of the case and what
was once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or
decision, continues to be binding between the same parties as long as
the facts on which the decision was predicated, continue to be the
facts of the case before the court. Hence, the binding effect and
enforceability of that dictum can no longer be resurrected anew
since said issue had already been resolved and finally laid to rest, if
not by the principle of res judicata, at least by conclusiveness of
judgment.102 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
_______________
28
_______________
103 610 Phil. 60; 592 SCRA 381 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
104 Id., at p. 69; p. 390.
105 Id., at pp. 63-64; p. 384.
106 Id., at p. 67; p. 387.
29
_______________
30
_______________
31
_______________
32
_______________
33
34
_______________
35
VI
_______________
36
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ligtas vs. People
_______________
37
_______________
137 See Gan v. People, 550 Phil. 133, 159; 521 SCRA 550, 577 (2007)
[Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division]; United States v. De Vera, 43 Phil.
1000, 1003 (1921) [Per J. Villamor, En Banc]; and People v. Yusay, 50
Phil. 598, 607 (1927) [Per J. Villa-Real, En Banc].
138 Cornes v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., supra note 38 at p. 548;
p. 566.
38
_______________
39
··o0o··
_______________
148 Id., at pp. 257-258; p. 271, citing People v. Mijares, 358 Phil. 154,
166; 297 SCRA 520, 534 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division];
People v. Corpuz, 459 Phil. 100, 113; 412 SCRA 479, 489 (2003) [Per J.
Ynares-Santiago, First Division].