Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. RAMON YU

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 167000 2011-06-08	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC) LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Republic of the Philippines (Civil Aeronautics Administration) v. Yu, [97] this Court expounded on the concept of res judicata and explained it in this wise: Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. [98]
	GR Nos. 189431 & 191120 2010-04-07	MAYOR QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. COMELEC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
For the principle of res judicata to apply, the following elements must be present: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.[27]
	GR No. 170750 2009-04-07	HEIRS OF TOMAS DOLLETON v. FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. There is "conclusiveness of judgment." Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues.[45]
	GR No. 165836 2009-02-18	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ADELA SIA QUISUMBING, J.
Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit.[34]
	GR No. 167426 2009-01-12	CHRIS GARMENTS CORPORATION v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS QUISUMBING, J.
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.[24] In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action. Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before the same or any other tribunal.[25]
	GR No. 161881 2008-07-31	NICASIO I. ALCANTARA v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
(3) identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action between the first and second actions;[52] On the other hand, for the second concept to operate, or for there to be conclusiveness of judgment, there must be identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action.[53] If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit; but the adjudication of an issue in the first case is not conclusive of an entirely different and distinct issue arising in the second.[54] Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action.[55]
	GR No. 132502 & 132503 2007-09-19	BENIGNO M. PUNO v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit.[68] Four elements must be present for res judicata to apply: 1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; 2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; 3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and 4) there must be, as between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.[69]