About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-158930 1 (1976-02-24)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaddfr0001 and id is 1 raw text is: DIECISION FILE: 3-158930 MATTER OF: DIGEST: 64 ~ -, THE COMPTROLLCR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES VA SH tN GTON, D .C. 2 0548 DATE: FEB 24 97 Salvador C. Suplido - Claim for overtime Compensation Under the doctrine of res judicata, which applies to a repetitious suit involving the same cause of action, a valid judgment on the merits con- stitutes an absolute bar to a sub- sequent action on the same-claim or demand as the cause of action has been extinguished in the court pro- ceedings. This action is in response to a request -for reconsideration of our Transportation and Claims Division (now Claims Division) settlement of June 8, 1966, which disallowed the claim of Mr. Salvador C. Suplido for overtime compensation for work per- formed in excess of 40 hours a week as a Filipino marine employee of the Eighth U.S. Army, Korea. The claim of Mr. Suplido for overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week was considered in the case of Marte et al. v. United States, Civil No. C-70-2675-HIS (N. D. Cal., April 3, 1974). The judgment of the court in that case was that the plaintiffs take nothing by their complaint and the defendant, the United States, shall have judgment entered for it. This action constituted a judicial determination of Mr. Suplido's claim on its merits and since the judgment has become final the matter of his claim is now res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata applies to repetitious suits involving the same cause of action. The doctrine is to the effect that a valid judgment rendered upon the merits constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action on the same claim or demand. It is final as to the claim or demand in controversy and such claim or demand cannot again be litigated. A judgment has the effect of putting an end to and extinguishing the cause of action which was the basis of the proceeding in which the judgment was rendered. See Max Bander v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 475 (1963), and the Supreme Court and legal authorities therein cited. 47 Comp. Gen. 573 (1968). 0. e.~S~

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most