Lawyerly

GR No. 166462

2012-10-24

P. L. UY REALTY CORPORATION v. ALS MANAGEMENT

VELASCO JR., J.

All the elements of res judicata, as a "bar by prior judgment," are present in the instant case. The previous complaint for foreclosure of mortgage was dismissed by the trial court for being premature in Civil Case No. 47438. The dismissal action, when eventually elevated to this Court in G.R. No. 91656, was affirmed and the affirmatory resolution of the Court becoming final and executory on February 7, 1990. Further, the element of indentity of parties is considered existing even though Litonjua was only impleaded in Civil Case No. 60221 and not in Civil Case No. 47438. Absolute identity of parties is not required for res judicata to apply; substantial identity is sufficient. The Court articulated this principle was raised in Cruz v. Court of Appeals[38] in this wise: The principle of res judicata may not be evaded by the mere expedient of including an additional party to the first and second action. Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation. 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.

GR No. 159746

2012-07-18

SPS. RAMON MENDIOLA AND ARACELI N. MENDIOLA v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

The foregoing conclusion of the Makati RTC on lack of identity between the causes of action was patently unsound. The identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity; otherwise, a party may easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain the actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the actions. If the same facts or evidence will sustain the actions, then they are considered identical, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.[42] Petitioners' Makati case and Shell's Manila case undeniably required the production of the same evidence. In fact, Shell's counsel faced a dilemma upon being required by the Makati RTC to present the original copies of certain documents because the documents had been made part of the records of the Manila case elevated to the CA in connection with the appeal of the Manila RTC's judgment.[43] Also, both cases arose from the same transaction (i.e., the foreclosure of the mortgage), such that the success of Ramon in invalidating the extrajudicial foreclosure would have necessarily negated Shell's right to recover the deficiency.

GR No. 182507

2010-06-18

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DE GUZMAN

NACHURA, J.

In any case, we agree with the CA's conclusion that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Motion to Dismiss. However, we do not agree that the judgment of dismissal in the first case was not on the merits. A ruling on a motion to dismiss, issued without trial on the merits or formal presentation of evidence, can still be a judgment on the merits.[23] Section 3[24] of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court is explicit that a dismissal for failure to comply with an order of the court shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. In other words, unless the court states that the dismissal is without prejudice, the dismissal should be understood as an adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice.[25]

GR No. 155622

2009-10-26

DOTMATRIX TRADING v. ROMMEL B. LEGASPI UNDER NAME

BRION, J.

Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant.[6] As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[7] It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits.[8]

GR No. 183105

2009-07-22

ERNA CASALS v. TAYUD GOLF

PERALTA, J.

Finally, petitioners contend that the CA failed to take judicial notice of its prior final resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 01286 entitled Apollo Homes Investment Corporation, et al. v. Erna Casals, et al., which, according to them, would subject the present case to the rule on res judicata. In Apollo, the CA dismissed the Petition for the Annulment of the Partial Compromise Agreement dated June 24, 2002, the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 4, 2003, the Order denying the Motion for Partial Judgment dated December 9, 2005 and the Partial Judgment and the Writ issued pursuant thereto. The argument of petitioners should be given scant consideration. Under the rule of res judicata, also known as "bar by prior judgment," a final judgment or order on the merits, rendered by a Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and of the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. The requisites essential for the application of the principle are: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) said judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the court rendering the same must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action.[48]

GR No. 163344

2009-03-20

VILLARICA PAWNSHOP

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

With respect to the second and third requisites, hornbook is the rule that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity;[27] otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.[28] The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions.[29] If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.[30] Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies.[31]

GR No. 146157

2009-02-13

LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It must be remembered that it is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by the parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated. The doctrine of res judicata is a rule that 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 dictates that it would be in 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 pro una et eadem causa. A contrary doctrine would subject 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 public tranquillity and happiness.[57]

GR No. 179556

2009-02-13

CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ v. CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is clear from the Order dated 31 May 2000 that Civil Case No. 97-84159 was dismissed by the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, motu proprio, for failure of petitioner and her counsel to attend the scheduled hearing on said date. Since the order of dismissal did not contain any qualification whatsoever, the general rule under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court shall apply and it shall be deemed to be an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action.[24]

GR No. 168139

2009-01-20

FERDINAND S. AGUSTIN v. SPS. MARIANO AND PRESENTACION DELOS SANTOS

PUNO, C.J.

Res judicata applies in the concept of "bar by prior judgment" if the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and of causes of action.[22]

GR No. 157592

2008-10-17

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN

NACHURA, J.

The filing of Civil Case No. 0188, although it has a different cause of action from Civil Case No. 0034, will not enable the PCGG to escape the operation of the principle of res judicata. A case litigated once shall not be relitigated in another action as it would violate the interest of the State to put an end to litigation - republicae ut sit litium and the policy that no man shall be vexed twice for the same cause - nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa.[26] Once a litigant's rights had been adjudicated in a valid final judgment by a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try.[27]

GR NO. 168557

2007-02-16

FELS ENERGY v. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Res judicata pervades every organized system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of 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 of being vexed twice for the same cause nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.[41] As we ruled in Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals:[42]

	GR No. 166462 2012-10-24	P. L. UY REALTY CORPORATION v. ALS MANAGEMENT VELASCO JR., J.
All the elements of res judicata, as a "bar by prior judgment," are present in the instant case. The previous complaint for foreclosure of mortgage was dismissed by the trial court for being premature in Civil Case No. 47438. The dismissal action, when eventually elevated to this Court in G.R. No. 91656, was affirmed and the affirmatory resolution of the Court becoming final and executory on February 7, 1990. Further, the element of indentity of parties is considered existing even though Litonjua was only impleaded in Civil Case No. 60221 and not in Civil Case No. 47438. Absolute identity of parties is not required for res judicata to apply; substantial identity is sufficient. The Court articulated this principle was raised in Cruz v. Court of Appeals[38] in this wise: The principle of res judicata may not be evaded by the mere expedient of including an additional party to the first and second action. Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation. 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.
	GR No. 159746 2012-07-18	SPS. RAMON MENDIOLA AND ARACELI N. MENDIOLA v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The foregoing conclusion of the Makati RTC on lack of identity between the causes of action was patently unsound. The identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity; otherwise, a party may easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain the actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the actions. If the same facts or evidence will sustain the actions, then they are considered identical, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.[42] Petitioners' Makati case and Shell's Manila case undeniably required the production of the same evidence. In fact, Shell's counsel faced a dilemma upon being required by the Makati RTC to present the original copies of certain documents because the documents had been made part of the records of the Manila case elevated to the CA in connection with the appeal of the Manila RTC's judgment.[43] Also, both cases arose from the same transaction (i.e., the foreclosure of the mortgage), such that the success of Ramon in invalidating the extrajudicial foreclosure would have necessarily negated Shell's right to recover the deficiency.
	GR No. 182507 2010-06-18	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DE GUZMAN NACHURA, J.
In any case, we agree with the CA's conclusion that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Motion to Dismiss. However, we do not agree that the judgment of dismissal in the first case was not on the merits. A ruling on a motion to dismiss, issued without trial on the merits or formal presentation of evidence, can still be a judgment on the merits.[23] Section 3[24] of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court is explicit that a dismissal for failure to comply with an order of the court shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. In other words, unless the court states that the dismissal is without prejudice, the dismissal should be understood as an adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice.[25]
	GR No. 155622 2009-10-26	DOTMATRIX TRADING v. ROMMEL B. LEGASPI UNDER NAME BRION, J.
Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant.[6] As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[7] It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits.[8]
	GR No. 183105 2009-07-22	ERNA CASALS v. TAYUD GOLF PERALTA, J.
Finally, petitioners contend that the CA failed to take judicial notice of its prior final resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 01286 entitled Apollo Homes Investment Corporation, et al. v. Erna Casals, et al., which, according to them, would subject the present case to the rule on res judicata. In Apollo, the CA dismissed the Petition for the Annulment of the Partial Compromise Agreement dated June 24, 2002, the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 4, 2003, the Order denying the Motion for Partial Judgment dated December 9, 2005 and the Partial Judgment and the Writ issued pursuant thereto. The argument of petitioners should be given scant consideration. Under the rule of res judicata, also known as "bar by prior judgment," a final judgment or order on the merits, rendered by a Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and of the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. The requisites essential for the application of the principle are: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) said judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the court rendering the same must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action.[48]
	GR No. 163344 2009-03-20	VILLARICA PAWNSHOP AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With respect to the second and third requisites, hornbook is the rule that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity;[27] otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.[28] The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions.[29] If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.[30] Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies.[31]
	GR No. 146157 2009-02-13	LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It must be remembered that it is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by the parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated. The doctrine of res judicata is a rule that 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 dictates that it would be in 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 pro una et eadem causa. A contrary doctrine would subject 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 public tranquillity and happiness.[57]
	GR No. 179556 2009-02-13	CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ v. CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is clear from the Order dated 31 May 2000 that Civil Case No. 97-84159 was dismissed by the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, motu proprio, for failure of petitioner and her counsel to attend the scheduled hearing on said date. Since the order of dismissal did not contain any qualification whatsoever, the general rule under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court shall apply and it shall be deemed to be an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action.[24]
	GR No. 168139 2009-01-20	FERDINAND S. AGUSTIN v. SPS. MARIANO AND PRESENTACION DELOS SANTOS PUNO, C.J.
Res judicata applies in the concept of "bar by prior judgment" if the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and of causes of action.[22]
	GR No. 157592 2008-10-17	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN NACHURA, J.
The filing of Civil Case No. 0188, although it has a different cause of action from Civil Case No. 0034, will not enable the PCGG to escape the operation of the principle of res judicata. A case litigated once shall not be relitigated in another action as it would violate the interest of the State to put an end to litigation - republicae ut sit litium and the policy that no man shall be vexed twice for the same cause - nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa.[26] Once a litigant's rights had been adjudicated in a valid final judgment by a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try.[27]
	GR NO. 168557 2007-02-16	FELS ENERGY v. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Res judicata pervades every organized system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of 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 of being vexed twice for the same cause nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.[41] As we ruled in Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals:[42]

JOSEFINA M. CRUZ v. CA