Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE A. LINZAG v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AC. No. 6760 2013-01-30	ANASTACIO N. TEODORO III v. ATTY. ROMEO S. GONZALES BRION, J.
The test of identity of causes of action does not depend on the form of an action taken, but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the present causes of action.[10] The heirs of Manuela cannot avoid the application of res judicata by simply varying the form of their action or by adopting a different method of presenting it.[11]
	GR No. 169913 2011-06-08	HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
Notably, the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects, namely: (1) "bar by prior judgment,"[74] wherein the judgment in a prior case bars the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action;[75] and (2) "conclusiveness of judgment,"[76] which precludes relitigation of a particular fact or issue in another action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.[77]
	GR No. 166734 2009-07-03	MANDY COMMODITIES CO. v. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA PERALTA, J.
In Alba v. Court of Appeals[51] and Linzag v. Court of Appeals,[52] it was held that a party aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeals in a petition filed with it for annulment of judgment, final order or resolution is not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but rather an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised. A petition for certiorari is, like a petition for annulment, a remedy of last resort and must be availed of only when an appeal or any other adequate, plain or speedy remedy may no longer be pursued in the ordinary course of law.[53] A remedy is said to be plain, speedy and adequate when it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[54]
	GR NO. 141528 2006-10-31	OSCAR P. MALLION v. EDITHA ALCANTARA AZCUNA, J.
It must be emphasized that a party cannot evade or avoid the application of res judicata by simply varying the form of his action or adopting a different method of presenting his case. [19] As this Court stated in Perez v. Court of Appeals:[20] x x x the statement of a different form of liability is not a different cause of action, provided it grows out of the same transaction or act and seeks redress for the wrong. Two actions are not necessarily for different causes of action simply because the theory of the second would not have been open under the pleadings in the first. A party cannot preserve the right to bring a second action after the loss of the first merely by having circumscribed and limited theories of recovery opened by the pleadings in the first.
	GR No. 164041 2005-07-29	ROSENDO ALBA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals in an action to annul a judgment of a Regional Trial Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, where only questions of law may be raised. The resort of petitioner to the instant civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is therefore erroneous. The special civil action of certiorari will not be allowed as a substitute for failure to timely file a petition for review under Rule 45, which should be instituted within 15 days[37] from receipt of the assailed decision or resolution. The wrong choice of remedy thus provides another reason to dismiss this petition.[38]
	GR NO. 122202 2005-05-26	HEIRS OF LATE FAUSTINA ADALID ALSO KNOWN AS CRISTINA ADALID NAMELY ELENA JAMITO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The doctrine of res judicata is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation - republicae ut sit litium, and (2) the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause - nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A contrary doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the gratification of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.[27]
	GR No. 147570 2004-02-27	SPS. NUMERIANO AND CARMELITA ROMERO v. MERCEDES L. TAN QUISUMBING, J.
Coming now to the issue of res judicata, we find that the elements thereof have been duly established in favor of respondents, to wit: (1) there is a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment or order is on the merits; (4) there is between the two cases identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[26] The compromise agreement between the parties was duly approved by the MTC of Malabon, Branch 55. Absent any evidence that mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity of documents that vitiated the compromise agreement, the agreement must be upheld. Petitioners claim that counsel did not assist them at the time the court approved the compromise agreement. However, this fact alone does not ipso facto result in a mistake under the law as to render inutile the approval of the trial court. In the absence of any evidence to counter the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duty, such presumption of regularity should be upheld.[27] Besides, it is presumed that a person would take ordinary care of his concerns,[28] such that petitioners' failure to obtain counsel at that time must be deemed with full knowledge of the consequences thereof. Had petitioners truly believed that the compromise agreement should have been stricken down, the proper course to take would have been to file a motion to set aside the agreement on grounds of nullity under Article 2038 of the Civil Code. It is well settled that a judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata and is immediately executory and not appealable unless set aside as abovestated.[29] Should the motion to set aside the compromise agreement be denied, petitioners may then appeal the denial. Further, a judgment based on a compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits, wherein the parties have validly entered into stipulations and the evidence was duly considered by the trial court that approved the agreement.
	GR No. 136834 2001-08-15	FELIX SENDON v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ QUISUMBING, J.
For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[12]