This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-09-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Decision of this Court in G.R. Nos. 159460 and 159461 became final and executory on May 20, 2011. It is a decision based on the merits of the case and rendered by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction after the parties invoked its jurisdiction. There is also, between the two sets of consolidated cases, identity of the parties, subject matter and causes of action. The parties in G.R. Nos. 159460 and 159461 are also impleaded as parties in these consolidated cases. And while some of the parties herein are not included in G.R. Nos. 159460 and 159461, the same are only few. In any event, it is well-settled that only substantial, and not absolute, identity of the parties is required for res judicata to lie. "There is substantial identity of the parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case."[114] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The absolute identity of parties is not required for the principle of res judicata to apply.[23] A shared identity of interests is sufficient to invoke the application of this principle.[24] The proscription may not be evaded by the mere expedient of including an additional party.[25] Res judicata may lie as long as there is a community of interests between a party in the first case and a party in the second case although the latter may not have been impleaded in the first.[26] | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The petitioners advance the theory that petitioner Francisca Jamito, a legal heir of Faustina Adalid, and the respondent Register of Deeds of Bais City were not parties to the earlier case, therefore, there was no identity of parties between the first case and the second case. We do not agree. The principle of res judicata may not be evaded by the mere expedient of including an additional party to the first and second action.[20] Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation.[21] There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case.[22] As fittingly held by the Court of Appeals:The appellants' pleadings both here and in the lower court admit that they are the descendants, and hence, the representatives of their predecessors-in-interest who were the defendants in Civil Case No. 4049. As such, the decision in the earlier case is binding on them and they are substantially the same persons who were parties in the earlier case. The addition of the Register of Deeds as a party in this case is of no moment as he is a mere nominal party.[23] | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Otherwise stated, there is forum shopping where a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending. The defense of litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the other/others; and, a final judgment is one that would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest. Absolute identity of parties is not required. It is enough that there is substantial identity of parties.[42] It is enough that the party against whom the estoppel is set up is actually a party to the former case.[43] There is identity of causes of action if the same evidence will sustain the second action. The principle applies even if the relief sought in the two cases may be different.[44] Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[45] | |||||
|
2001-08-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We also concur with the lower courts' view that there is identity of parties in Civil Case No. 1800 / Civil Case No. K-111 and in the present case, Civil Case No. 3670. For purposes of res judicata, we have held that only substantial identity of parties is required and not absolute identity.[14] There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case.[15] In other words, privity or a shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke application of the principle of res judicata.[16] | |||||