This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-08-14 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Secondly, a subject matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under dispute.[26] In the case at bar, the subject matter in the Swiss Federal Court was described in the 31 May 1989 decision itself as "ruling on temporary measures (freezing of accounts) and of taking of evidence (gathering bank information)."[27] It was thus concerned with determining (1) whether "there is a reason of exclusion as defined in Art. 2 lit. b and [Art. ] 3 par. 1 IRSG[28] or an applicable case of Art. 10 Par. 2 IRSG;" [29] (2) whether legal assistance should be refused on the basis of Art. 2 lit. a IRSG;[30] (3) whether Officeco should be regarded as a disinterested party owing to the fact that its name was not included in the list accompanying the IMAC request as well as in the order of the District Attorney of Zurich; and (4) whether the grant of legal assistance is proper considering the actions of Gapud.[31] In short, the subject matter before the Swiss courts was the propriety of the legal assistance extended to the Philippine government. On the other hand, the issue in Civil Case No. 0164 is whether the PCGG may be compelled to officially advise the Swiss government to exclude or drop from the freeze or sequestration order the account of Officeco with BTAG and to release the said account to Officeco. In short, the subject matter in Civil Case No. 0164 is the propriety of PCGG's stance regarding Officeco's account with BTAG. | |||||
|
2007-06-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of res judicata provides that the judgment in a first case is final as to the claim or demand in controversy, between the parties and those privy with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which must have been offered for that purpose and all matters that could have been adjudged in that case.[22] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A party cannot escape the operation of res judicata by simply varying the form of the action or by adopting a different mode of presenting its case.[24] That one case is for revocation of sale and the other for accion reivindicatoria is of no significance. The application of res judicata cannot be subverted merely by a difference in labelling. In fact, res judicata has been applied to cases far more diverse than the hair-splitting distinctions raised by petitioners concerning the instant case. For instance, a case for rendering an accounting of funds was held to preclude a subsequent case for the partition of the same funds and their fruits; a judgment in an action for recovery of damages for property lost was an effective bar to any other action between the same parties for the recovery of the same property or its value.[25] All the more should res judicata be applied in this instance. | |||||