G.R. No. L-25521 - FEBRUARY 1966 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-25521February 28, 1966 Gregorio Ferinion vs. Diosdado Sta. Romana, et al. G.R. No. L-25502February 28, 1966 Leopoldo Diaz vs. Salvador C. Reyes, et al. G.R. Nos. L-25084 and 25270February 28, 1966 Elenita V. Unson vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-24727February 28, 1966 Paterno Javier vs. Court of First Instance of Antique, et al. G.R. No. L-23828February 28, 1966 Paulina Santos, et al vs. Gregoria Aranzanso, et al. G.R. No. L-23301February 28, 1966 Celestino E. Esuerte, et al vs. Delfin Jampayas, et al. G.R. No. L-22609February 28, 1966 Chief of the Philippine Constabulary vs. Sabungan Bagong Silang,Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-22043February 28, 1966 Aurora C. Mallari, et al vs. Victory Liner, Inc. G.R. No. L-21877February 28, 1966 J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs. Enrique Tongol G.R. No. L-21833February 28, 1966 State Bonding and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-21671February 28, 1966 In re: Tan Huy Liong. Tan Huy Liong vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21569February 28, 1966 Estate of Mr. and Mrs. Florencio P. Buan, etc. vs. Priscillo Camaganacan G.R. No. L-21523February 28, 1966 Ngo Chiao Lin vs. Commissioner of Immigration G.R. No. L-21447February 28, 1966 Jose Reyes, et al vs. Francisco Arca, et al. G.R. No. L-21435February 28, 1966 Manila Electric Co. vs. Public Service Commssion G.R. No. L-21415February 28, 1966 Republic vs. Republic Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-21079February 28, 1966 In re: Koa Heng. Koa Heng vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20978February 28, 1966 Philippine American General Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Eugenio B. Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-20753February 28, 1966 Basic Books (Phil.), Inc. vs. Emilio Lopez, et al. G.R. No. L-20712February 28, 1966 In re: Tan King Book. Tan King Book vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20601February 28, 1966 Butuan Sawmill, Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20505February 28, 1966 In re: Ong Kim Kong. Ong Kim Kong vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20412February 28, 1966 Philippine National Bank vs. Amando M. Perez, et al. G.R. No. L-20152February 28, 1966 In re: Leoncio Dy. Leoncio Dy vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19905February 28, 1966 Virgilio Brua vs. Enrique Inting G.R. No. L-19900February 28, 1966 Expedito Remonte, et al vs. Aquilino P. Bonto, et al. G.R. No. L-19751February 28, 1966 Alfredo Remitere, et al vs. Remedios Montinola vda. de Yulo, et al. G.R. No. L-19722February 28, 1966 Testate Estate of Vito Borromeo. Florencio L. Albino vs. Tomas L. Borromeo, et al. G.R. No. L-19648February 28, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Macabuhay G.R. No. L-19579February 28, 1966 In re: Chan Kiat Huat. Chan Kiat Huat vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19371February 28, 1966 Hospital de San Juan de Dios, Inc. vs. Pasay City, et al. G.R. No. L-18295February 28, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Felizardo Pasiona G.R. No. L-17638February 28, 1966 Primo Gaffud vs. Marciana Cristobal, et al. G.R. Nos. L-17518-19February 28, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Federico Secapuri, et al. G.R. No. L-23876February 22, 1966 Ursula C. Dayao vs. Benedicto Padilla, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Gregorio Ferinion vs. Diosdado Sta. Romana, et al. Leopoldo Diaz vs. Salvador C. Reyes, et al. Elenita V. Unson vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Paterno Javier vs. Court of First Instance of Antique, et al. Paulina Santos, et al vs. Gregoria Aranzanso, et al. Celestino E. Esuerte, et al vs. Delfin Jampayas, et al. Chief of the Philippine Constabulary vs. Sabungan Bagong Silang,Inc., et al. Aurora C. Mallari, et al vs. Victory Liner, Inc. J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs. Enrique Tongol State Bonding and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. In re: Tan Huy Liong. Tan Huy Liong vs. Republic of the Philippines Estate of Mr. and Mrs. Florencio P. Buan, etc. vs. Priscillo Camaganacan Ngo Chiao Lin vs. Commissioner of Immigration Jose Reyes, et al vs. Francisco Arca, et al. Manila Electric Co. vs. Public Service Commssion Republic vs. Republic Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. In re: Koa Heng. Koa Heng vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine American General Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Eugenio B. Ramos, et al. Basic Books (Phil.), Inc. vs. Emilio Lopez, et al. In re: Tan King Book. Tan King Book vs. Republic of the Philippines Butuan Sawmill, Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. In re: Ong Kim Kong. Ong Kim Kong vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine National Bank vs. Amando M. Perez, et al. In re: Leoncio Dy. Leoncio Dy vs. Republic of the Philippines Virgilio Brua vs. Enrique Inting Expedito Remonte, et al vs. Aquilino P. Bonto, et al. Alfredo Remitere, et al vs. Remedios Montinola vda. de Yulo, et al. Testate Estate of Vito Borromeo. Florencio L. Albino vs. Tomas L. Borromeo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Macabuhay In re: Chan Kiat Huat. Chan Kiat Huat vs. Republic of the Philippines Hospital de San Juan de Dios, Inc. vs. Pasay City, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Felizardo Pasiona Primo Gaffud vs. Marciana Cristobal, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Federico Secapuri, et al. Ursula C. Dayao vs. Benedicto Padilla, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-25521             February 28, 1966

GREGORIO FERINION,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
DIOSDADO STA. ROMANA, RESURRECCION RAMOS, BASILIA FERINION and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,defendants-appellees.

Teodoro P. Santiago for the plaintiff-appellant.
Ramon C. Aquino, Manuel Crudo, Geminiano F. Yabut and Leandro C. Sevilla for the defendants-appellees.

R E S O L U T I O N

SANCHEZ,J.:

Four cases involving substantially the same causes of action, the same subject matter and the same parties were, at divers times, before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija,viz:

1. The first case —

The complaint therein filed on March 17, 1955 prayed for the annulment of (1) the power of attorney executed by plaintiffs Sinforosa Ferinion, Felicidad Ferinion and Gregorio Ferinion in favor of their co-owner, defendant Basilia Ferinion, covering the lands described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20912 of the land records of Nueva Ecija; and (2) the two real estate mortgages executed by Basilia Ferinion — pursuant to the foregoing power of attorney — in favor of defendants spouses Diosdado Sta. Romana and Resureccion Ramos. Defendants duly answered the complaint. On February 24, 1956, the court, thru Judge L. Pasicolan, dismissed this casewithout prejudicebecause of non-attendance of plaintiffs and their lawyer at the trial.

2. The second case —

In this second suit, the name of Felicidad Ferinion, one of the plaintiffs in Case 1792, was deleted "in view of her refusal to give her consent to be joined as plaintiff." The complaint in this case was filed on July 9, 1956, after the lapse of 4 and 1/2 months from February 24, 1956, the date of the order of dismissal of the first complaint.

As in the first case, the averments of the complaint were traversed in defendants' answer.1äwphï1.ñët

On August 30, 1956, plaintiffs' counsel moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs were "not being interested in the further prosecution of their claim against the defendants." On September 3, 1956, the date set for the hearing of this motion, counsel for all parties appeared in court. Defendants' attorneys offered no objection to plaintiffs' motion provided that the "dismissal be made of record as an adjudication on the merits", i.e., "with prejudice". Judge Felix V. Makasiar forthwith dismissed plaintiffs' complaint "with prejudice".

3. The third case is entitled —

The complaint in this third case was filed on April 15, 1957, that is, 7 months and 12 days from the dismissal of the second case on September 3, 1956.

Plaintiffs' action here seeks the annulment of the very same documents set forth in the first two complaints adverted to. The mortgages having been foreclosed and Torrens Title issued in favor of defendant spouses, the Sta. Romanas, the complaint further prays for reconveyance of their 3/4 share of the property, with damages.

This complaint was met by defendants with a motion to dismiss dated May 20, 1957, upon the ground ofres judicata. Instead of seriously talking issue with defendants, plaintiffs on May 2, 1958 filed a notice of (1) withdrawal of their opposition of June 7, 1957 to the motion to dismiss and (2) of dismissal, wherein they joined defendants in their prayer that "said motion (to dismiss) be granted and that this case be dismissed without costs andwith prejudice". On the same day — May 2, 1958 — in line with plaintiffs' said notice of dismissal, Judge Jose N. Leuterio issued an order which reads: "As prayed for by the plaintiffs, the above case is dismissed without pronouncement as to costs".

4. After the lapse of 6 years, 9 months and 23 days from the order of dismissal (dated May 2, 1958) of the third complaint, the instantfourthcomplaint was filed on February 25,1965. This time it was entitled —

The lone plaintiff sought judgment for the annulment of the deeds aforesaid and defendant spouses' title covering the properties in question, solely in so far as his rights are affected, with damages and attorneys' fees.

Once again defendants moved to dismiss,inter alia, upon the ground ofres judicata. On September 14, 1965, after due hearing on the motion, Judge Florencio Villamor dismissed thisfourthcomplaint "with prejudice".

Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the foregoing order having been thwarted below, he elevated the case to this Court on appeal.

Before us now is a motion to dismiss the appeal, upon the grounds that (1) it is manifestly frivolous and (2) it was not perfected on time.

This case is unique in itself. Three previous complaints were dismissed in the trial court by three different judges of first instance. The first was without prejudice, the second was with prejudice and the third also with prejudice.³The orders of dismissal of all these cases have become final. Needless to repeat, they all refer substantially to the same subject matter, the same causes of action and the same parties. Citation of authorities is unnecessary to show thatres judicatahad set in.

Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant's rights have been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply in number to the detriment of the administration of justice. This is a situation which should not be permitted to obtain here or elsewhere where there is an orderly form of government. Public policy demands that judicial proceedings be upheld. The maximnon quieta moverecannot be meaningless.Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 821, 942.

If the sole plaintiff here was not satisfied with the dismissal of thesecond case(Civil Case No. 2206),⁴he should have pursued the remedies accorded him by law. He cannot be permitted to revive that lawfully terminated suit and question the final judgment therein by filing an independent action. And yet, appellant even went beyond this. He filed athirdcomplaint. This, too, was dismissed. Then he filed afourth. He must be stopped on his tracks. The following from Dy Cay vs. Crossfield and O'Brien, 38 Phil. 521, 526, commands assent:

The appeal is manifestly frivolous; it should be dismissed.Cruz, et al. vs. Blanco, et al.,73 Phil. 596, 597.

We need not pass on the other ground of the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Upon the view we take of this case, the appeal is dismissed. Costs against plaintiff-appellant. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Footnotes