G.R. No. L-30303




Manila EN BANC [G.R. No. L-30303. August 31, 1970] ANTONIO FALCON, Petitioner, v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR. in his CAPACITY AS AUDITOR GENERAL, Respondent. David C. Naval for Petitioner. Solicitor General for Respondent. D E C I S I O N REYES, J.B.L., J.: Petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Auditor General to pass in audit and approve for payment a final award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission against the Republic of the Philippines. By decision of 20 December 1967, in its Case No. RO6-4911, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission ordered the Republic of the Philippines to pay claimant Modesto Falcon the sum P3,360.00 for the death in line of duty of his son, Clarencio T. Falcon, of the Philippine Navy’s Naval Air Unit, plus P336.00 as counsel fees. The Solicitor General, on behalf of respondent Republic, moved to reconsider, praying that the gratuity paid to the claimant under Republic Act No. 610 be deducted from the award, but such deduction was refused by the Commission. No appeal having been perfected, the award became final and the Commission’s Secretary urged the Navy to satisfy the claim. Payment was recommended by the Solicitor General, but the Navy Auditor insisted on the deduction of the gratuity paid under Republic Act 610, and he was supported by the Auditor General. Hence, this petition for mandamus.ℒαwρhi৷ The denial of the claimed deduction by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission having become final, the respondent Auditor General has no alternative but to approve the payment of the Commission’s award. For him to insist on reducing the compensation payable thereunder (by insisting that the indemnity paid under Republic Act No. 610 should be subtracted from it) amounts to review by him of the Commission final award, and no such review is authorized by law or jurisprudence. The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission are exclusively appealable to the Supreme Court, yet, even the latter is powerless to alter award that have become final, so long as they are made within the Commission’s jurisdiction, which is not question in this case. Provincial Auditor v. Judge Teodoro, 99 Phil. 504, relied upon by the respondent, is inapplicable, because there the Auditor’s office was not made a party and was not heard in its defense. Hence, this Court said in that case and it is not fair to adjudge an issue in a proceeding where the person to be affected is not a regular party, and what is worse can not properly assert a defense particularly approved by statutes and precedents. In the case before us, the respondent in the case below was the entire Republic of the Philippines, and the Auditor General lays no claim to be independent of it. Since the finality of the award binds and concludes the Republic, it should likewise conclude the Respondent. That is elementary. The merits of the question raised by him were there passed upon and finally resolved in the negative, and it is contrary to justice and public interest that the issue should be invoked anew. Its denial has become res judicata. A final judgment is conclusive between the parties with respect to the matter directly adjudged or any other matter that could be raised in relation thereto.1 WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is granted, and respondent Auditor General is ordered to pass in audit the petitioner’s claim as decided by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in its final judgment of 20 December 1967. No costs. Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur. Makasiar, J., did not take part. Footnotes 1 Revised Rule of Court 39, section 49(b); Peñalosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303, 312; Philippine National Bank v. Barretto, 52 Phil. 818, 824; Namarco v. Judge Macadaeg, 52 O.G. 182, 98 Phil 185; Miranda v. Tiangco, Et Al., L-7044, 81 Jan. 1955, 96 Phil. 526; Jalandoni v. Martin Guanzon, 54 O.G., p. 2907, 102 Phil. 859; Soriano v. De Leon, L-7863, 31 Aug. 1959; Velasquez v. Gil, 53 O.G., p. 5615. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation