This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Respondent Aquino, on the other hand, insists that the rule on res judicata does not apply in the present case as the third element for res judicata to set in, that the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits, is not attendant. She reiterates that the dismissal of the first case, Civil Case No. 2003-023, was not a judgment on the merits.[21] Citing the decision of the Court in G.R. No. 167691 holding that she was able to state a cause of action for damages which could be threshed out in a trial on the merits, Aquino claims that she filed the second complaint to ventilate her cause of action against the petitioners[22] in order to give life to this Court's ruling. | |||||