FACTS:

The case involves the petitioner, Carlito Encinas, who was a Provincial Fire Marshall of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP). Two BFP personnel, Alfredo Agustin and Joel Caubang, accused Encinas of demanding a bribe of Php 5,000 in exchange for not reassigning them to far-flung fire stations. Encinas denied the allegations and claimed that the reassignment was made in compliance with his superior's directive.

The complaint against Encinas was initially dismissed by the BFP due to insufficiency of evidence. However, another complaint was filed with the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Encinas argued that the CSCRO should have dismissed the complaint since the BFP had already dismissed the case and that the resolution of the fact-finding committee was a judgment on the merits. The CSCRO upheld Encinas' administrative liability for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Encinas appealed the decision to the CSC main office, raising issues of forum-shopping, lack of certification of non-forum shopping, lack of substantial evidence, and credibility of the witnesses. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal, ruling that there was no forum-shopping and that substantial evidence existed to hold Encinas administratively liable. Encinas then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, disputing the finding of forum-shopping and the existence of substantial evidence to support the administrative liability. The respondents argued that a certificate of non-forum shopping was not required in this case and that the complaints filed with the CSC and the BFP were based on different causes of action.

The Supreme Court is tasked to resolve whether the respondents are guilty of forum-shopping and whether there is substantial evidence to hold Encinas administratively liable.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondents are guilty of forum-shopping.

2. Whether the proceedings before the BFP were administrative or quasi-judicial in nature.

3. Whether the BFP had the authority to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties.

4. Whether the BFP had the authority to dismiss the administrative complaint against the petitioner.

5. Whether the dismissal of the complaint by the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) can operate as res judicata.

6. Whether there was substantial evidence to hold the petitioner administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

7. Whether or not petitioner's act of demanding money in exchange for non-reassignment constitutes grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING:

1. No, the respondents are not guilty of forum-shopping. The Court ruled that the dismissal of the first complaint does not constitute res judicata in relation to the second complaint. Hence, there is no forum-shopping on the part of the respondents.

2. The proceedings before the BFP were administrative in nature. They constituted a fact-finding investigation for the purpose of determining whether a formal charge for an administrative offense should be filed against the petitioner.

3. The BFP did not have the authority to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties. The proceedings were purely administrative and did not entail any decision on guilt or innocence. The BFP's role was limited to investigating the existence of facts for the purpose of deciding whether to proceed with an administrative action.

4. The BFP had the authority to dismiss the administrative complaint against the petitioner. Based on the evidence on record, the BFP found no sufficient ground to warrant the filing of an appropriate administrative offense against the petitioner.

5. The dismissal of the BFP complaint cannot operate as res judicata. Therefore, forum-shopping is unavailing in this case.

6. The Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that there was substantial evidence to hold the petitioner administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

7. • Petitioner's act of demanding money from respondents in exchange for their non-reassignment constitutes grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

PRINCIPLES:

• Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.

• Res judicata means a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided, or a thing or matter settled by judgment. For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and the second actions (i) identity of parties, (ii) identity of subject matter, and (iii) identity of cause of action.

• The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of administrative powers. Administrative powers refer to those purely administrative in nature, as opposed to administrative proceedings that take on a quasi-judicial character.

• A quasi-judicial proceeding involves taking and evaluating evidence, determining facts based upon the evidence presented, and rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved. The exercise of quasi-judicial functions involves determining what the law is, what the legal rights and obligations of the contending parties are, and adjudicating the respective rights and obligations of the parties.

• Preliminary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. Its purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.

• The public prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, and does not exercise adjudication or rule-making functions. The courts ultimately pass judgment on the accused.

• The investigative or inquisitorial powers of a public prosecutor in a preliminary investigation include inspecting records and premises, investigating activities of persons or entities under jurisdiction, and securing or requiring the disclosure of information.

• The exercise of investigatory powers sets a public prosecutor apart from the court, which exercises judicial adjudication to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of concerned parties.

• The public prosecutor exercises investigative powers in the conduct of a preliminary investigation to determine whether further action should be taken. The same principle applies to the fact-finding function exercised by the BFP.

• The findings of fact of administrative bodies, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court, unless there is grave abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence.

• A witness's credibility is not automatically discredited by a prior criminal conviction or dismissal from service. The testimony of a witness must be assessed for relevance and credibility.

• The subsequent reconciliation or desistance by the parties to an administrative proceeding does not strip the court of its jurisdiction to hear and resolve the case. The purpose of an administrative proceeding is to protect the public service and preserve public trust. A complaint cannot be withdrawn at any time for any reason by a complainant.

• Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. Grave misconduct involves willful intent to violate the law or disregard established rules.

• Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service includes acts such as misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to keep in safety public records and property, making false entries in public documents, and falsification of court orders.

• Grave misconduct is a grave offense punishable by dismissal, while conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is punishable by suspension for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.