G.R. No. 82475 - JANUARY 1991 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 82475January 28, 1991Francisca Gutierrez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 90232-33January 28, 1991Keihin Narasaki Corporation, et al. vs. Crystal Navigation, S.A., et al. G.R. Nos. 90191-96January 28, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Anacleto Furugganan G.R. Nos. 76828-32January 28, 1991Sixto L. Orosa, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 89989January 28, 1991Eden D. Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 84526January 28, 1991Philippine Comm'l. & Ind'l. Bank, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 83810January 28, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Rey M. Bernardino G.R. No. 81404January 28, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Israel Carmina G.R. No. 80962January 28, 1991Marina Port Serv. Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 78693January 28, 1991Zosimo Cielo vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78603January 28, 1991Phil/ National Const. Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 57737January 28, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Juan Estolano G.R. No. 89393January 25, 1991Johnny Demaisip vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 34267-68January 25, 1991Biak-Na-Bato Mining Company vs. Arturo R. Tanco, Jr., et al. G.R. Nos. 86917-18January 25, 1991Reliance Surety & Insurance vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 86640January 25, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Francisco C. Natan G.R. No. 84719January 25, 1991Yong Chan Kim vs. People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. 80511January 25, 1991Costabella Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 94459-60January 24, 1991Guillermo R. Sanchez, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. 92355January 24,1991People of the Philippines vs. Pedring Calixtro, et al. G.R. No. 91958January 24, 1991Wilfredo D. Licudan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 91391January 24, 1991Francisco I. Chavez vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 91307January 24, 1991Singer Sewing Machine Company vs. Franklin M. Drilon, et al. G.R. No. 91116January 24, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Gerones G.R. No. 79762January 24, 1991Fortune Cement Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 93924January 23, 1991Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. National Electrification Administration G.R. Nos. 90507-10January 23, 1991Maximo B. Dalog, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. 90255January 23, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Alberto M. Rodriguez G.R. No. 88210January 23, 1991Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Sec. of Labor and Employment, et al. G.R. No. 88044January 23, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Martin Cagadas, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 86597January 23, 1991Bonifacio Co, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 85024January 23, 1991Domingo Vicente vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. 83251January 23, 1991Renato B. Suarez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 78771January 23, 1991Consolidated Bank, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 72994January 23, 1991Felicisimo Rocaberte vs. People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. Nos. 90660-61January 21, 1991Ute Paterok vs. Bureau of Customs , et al. G.R. No. 35266January 21, 1991Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lianga Bay Logging Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 94759January 21, 1991Tech. Developers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94167January 21, 1991Mabuhay Shipping, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 88017January 21, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Lo Ho Wing, et al. G.R. No. 76235January 21, 1991Procerfina Olbinar vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 75787January 21, 1991Sociedad Europea De Financiacion, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 74833January 21, 1991Thomas C. Cheesman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 67702January 18, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Antonio A. Peralta G.R. No. 60077January 18, 1991National Power Corporation vs. Misericordia Gutierrez, et al. G.R. No. 95346January 18, 1991Perfecto V. Galido vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. 88883January 18, 1991Atok-Big Wedge Mining Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 81561January 18, 1991People of the Philippines vs. Andre Marti G.R. No. 78109January 18, 1991Solomon Rolloque, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 78038January 18, 1991Benjamin Venturina vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 76232January 18, 1991Vill Transport Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 72876January 18, 1991Florencio Ignao vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Francisca Gutierrez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Keihin Narasaki Corporation, et al. vs. Crystal Navigation, S.A., et al.People of the Philippines vs. Anacleto FuruggananSixto L. Orosa, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Eden D. Paredes vs. SandiganbayanPhilippine Comm'l. & Ind'l. Bank, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Rey M. BernardinoPeople of the Philippines vs. Israel CarminaMarina Port Serv. Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Zosimo Cielo vs. National Labor Relations Commission,Phil/ National Const. Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Juan EstolanoJohnny Demaisip vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Biak-Na-Bato Mining Company vs. Arturo R. Tanco, Jr., et al.Reliance Surety & Insurance vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Francisco C. NatanYong Chan Kim vs. People of the Philippines, et al.Costabella Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Guillermo R. Sanchez, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Pedring Calixtro, et al.Wilfredo D. Licudan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Francisco I. Chavez vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.Singer Sewing Machine Company vs. Franklin M. Drilon, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo GeronesFortune Cement Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. National Electrification AdministrationMaximo B. Dalog, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Alberto M. RodriguezPhilippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Sec. of Labor and Employment, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Martin Cagadas, Jr., et al.Bonifacio Co, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Domingo Vicente vs. Employees' Compensation CommissionRenato B. Suarez vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Consolidated Bank, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Felicisimo Rocaberte vs. People of the Philippines, et al.Ute Paterok vs. Bureau of Customs , et al.Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lianga Bay Logging Company, Inc., et al.Tech. Developers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Mabuhay Shipping, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Lo Ho Wing, et al.Procerfina Olbinar vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Sociedad Europea De Financiacion, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Thomas C. Cheesman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Antonio A. PeraltaNational Power Corporation vs. Misericordia Gutierrez, et al.Perfecto V. Galido vs. Commission on Elections, et al.Atok-Big Wedge Mining Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Andre MartiSolomon Rolloque, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Benjamin Venturina vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.Vill Transport Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Florencio Ignao vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R.No. 82475             January 28, 1991

FRANCISCA GUTIERREZ, MONICA GUTIERREZ, JOSE GUTIERREZ and SPS. ERNESTO BEN and ADELA BAJIT,petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. ROMULO E. ABASOLO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC, First Judicial Region, Br. 47, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, EUGENIA GUTIERREZ, AURELIA GUTIERREZ, LEONILA GUTIERREZ, ARNEL GUTIERREZ, and FLORA GUTIERREZ,respondents.

Simplicio M. Sevilleja for petitioners.
Isaiah B. Asuncion, Sr. for private respondents.

CRUZ,J.:

Res judicataliterally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." It also refers to the "rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit."1

This rule is invoked in the case at bar. The petitioners maintain that the respondent court committed reversible error when it sustained the denial by the trial court of their motion to dismiss a second case on all fours with an earlier case already decided on the merits.

The first case was an action for partition filed with the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta on July 13, 1984, and docketed as Civil Case No. U-4122 in Branch 46. The plaintiffs were Eugenia Gutierrez, Aurelia Gutierrez, Leonila Gutierrez, Flora Gomez, and Arnel Gutierrez, the herein private respondents. The defendants were Francisca Gutierrez, Monica Gutierrez and Jose Gutierrez, the herein petitioners. The subject consisted of three parcels of land, one covered by Tax Declaration No. 7236 and the other two by OCT No. 20005, in the land records of Pangasinan.2An answer with counterclaim was filed by the defendant on December 26, 1984.3

This case was dismissed on August 4, 1986, by virtue of the following order:

The second case was filed on February 12, 1986, and docketed as Civil Case No. U-4357 in Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta. The same herein private respondents were again the plaintiffs. The defendants were also the herein petitioners plus the spouses Emesto Ben and Adela Bajit. The action was for annulment of documents, ownership and possession of two parcels of land also covered by TCT No. 20005.4On March 10, 1986, the defendants filed their answer with counterclaim.5

On March 15, 1987, before the hearing on the merits, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the second case was barred by the prior judgment in the first case. Annexedinter aliato the motion was a certified true copy of the above-quoted order of August 4, 1986.

After hearing, the motion was denied in an order dated April 28, 1987. Reconsideration was denied on July 11, 1987. The defendants went oncertiorarito the Court of Appeals, which denied their petition.6They then came to this Court on the contention that both the trial and respondent courts erred in not dismissing the second action on the ground ofres judicata.

Forres judicatato operate as a bar to the re-opening of a matter already judicially determined by competent authority, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; (3) it 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 second actions, identity of parties, subject-matter and cause of action.7

In sustaining the order of August 4, 1986, the respondent court held that the dismissal of the first case did not amount to an adjudication on the merits because such dismissal was made at the pre-trial stage. The trial not having commenced as yet, the following Rule 17, Section 3, of the Rules of Court invoked by the petitioners was not applicable:

The Court of Appeals also noted: "While it is true that the order of dismissal carries the phrase "with prejudice" it is safe to assume that the court modified or rectified its previous order when it denied petitioners' motion to dismiss. The Court must have felt that its previous order was drastic, amounting to a denial of due process. After all, it is within the power of the court to amend and control its order to make it conformable with law and justice (Sec. 5, Rule 135)."

We do not agree with the respondent court that the aforesaid rule is not applicable because the trial had not yet commenced. Its interpretation of the term "trial" is unduly restrictive and does not square with the commmon concept given to this word, thus:

InGeralde v. Sabido,9the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint because of their repeated motions for postponement of the pre-trial. In sustaining the dismissal of their second complaint based on the same cause of action against the same defendants, this Court declared:

Even assuming that the scheduled pre-trial did not form part of the trial proper, the above rule still authorized the dismissal of the complaint for failure of the plaintiffs "to comply with the rules or any order of the court." In this case, there was non-compliance by the plaintiffs with the order of the court to appear at the scheduled pre-trial.

Under Rule 20, pre-trial and the presence of all parties therein are mandatory in civil proceedings, such that:

On the holding that the challenged order of April 28, 1987, "modified or rectified" the order of August 4,1986, we find that this could not have been done legally. The first reason is that the earlier order was already final and executory and therefore could no longer be amended by the second order. No appeal had been taken by the plaintiffs from the order of August 4, 1986, notwithstanding that the dismissal was "with prejudice." That order was served on them on September 5, 1986, more than six months before the petitioners invoked it in their motion to dismiss the second case on March 17, 1987. On that date, it was no longer possible to revise the meaning of that order by considering the dismissal as "without prejudice."

The second reason is that the court that issued the original order of dismissal was not the same court that sought to change it later in the order dated April 28, 1987. The first order came from Judge Juanito M. Cagampan of Branch 46 whereas the second came from Judge Romulo E. Abasolo of Branch 47, of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta. Unquestionably, as they were of equal rank, Judge Abasolo had no authority to "modify or rectify" the order issued by Judge Cagampan.

In the case ofMas v. Dumara-oq,11this Court declared:

The private respondents contend thatres judicatais not applicable because there is no identity of cause of action or parties or subject-matter. They point out that the cause of action in Civil Case No. U-4122 was for partition whereas the cause of action in Civil Case No. U-4357 is for annulment of documents, ownership, and possession plus damages. A second parcel of land was included in the first case but not in the second; hence, there is no identity of subject-matter either. The parties in both cases are also different from each other because of the addition of two other defendants in the second case.

Significantly, the Court of Appeals found that "the second case is an offshoot of the first case, which relates to an action for the annulment of documents, ownership, possession against petitioners, involving identical parties, and the same subject-matter as the preceding case."

It is conceded that the parties in the two cases are not exactly the same because of the addition of the spouses Ernesto Ben and Adela Bajit as defendants in the second case. There is no refutation, however, of the petitioners' allegation that these additional defendants are mere successors-in-interest in a portion of land they bought from Monica Gutierrez, one of the petitioners.

As we also held in the Geralde case:

As for the subject-matter, it is true that the complaint of July 12, 1984, included another parcel of land with an area of 17,000 square meters that was not claimed in the second complaint.1âwphi1The petitioners categorically state, however, that they have never claimed that particular lot because it admittedly belongs to the respondents as their advance inheritance. This allegation has not been denied by the private respondents.

It is obvious that the addition of two other parties and the exclusion of the other parcel of land in the second case were intended by the respondents to give it a semblance of difference from the earlier case. So too, as we find it, was the different designation of the second complaint although it was also in effect one for partition like the first case.

In this regard, we have repeatedly held:

When the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda, the petitioners argued their case vigorously, explaining in detail why they believed the doctrine ofres judicatashould be applied. For their part, the private respondents appeared to be merely making the motions of compliance and did not seem to have the will to fight for the victories they had won in the lower court. Their 6-page memorandum was a limp elaboration of their 3-page comment, devoting only 2 pages to their argument, such as it was.

While we do not suggest that mere length of the memoranda is our criterion for decision, we do note that in the case at bar the private respondents seemed to lack the spirit, if not the reasons, to support their position. Apparently, they were content to just rely on the challenged decision (which merely declared there had been no trial on the merits) and had no additional arguments of their own to offer.

Precisely, that decision was being questioned and it was for the private respondents to defend it. All they virtually did was restate the requisites ofres judicataand pronounce that the principle was not applicable to the case at bar. No serious effort was made to refute the petitioners' assertion that there was a final judgment on the merits rendered by a competent court and that the judgment could no longer be "modified or rectified" by another court of equal rank. No rebuttal was made of the petitioners' conclusion that there was identity of cause of action, parties and subject-matter in the first and second complaints. All private respondents said was that there was no such identity.

Our own finding, on the basis of the established or unrebutted facts and the other records of this case, is thatres judicatais indeed applicable and that the second complaint is barred by prior judgment. We hold that the order of August 4, 1986, was an adjudication on the merits by a competent court and could no longer be "modified or rectified" after it had become final and executory, much less by another court of equal rank only, and that there was an identity of cause of action, subject-matter and parties in the first and second cases. Hence, the motion to dismiss the second complaint should not have been denied by the trial court and such denial should not have been affirmed by the respondent court.

WHEREFORE,the petition isGRANTED,and Civil Case No. U-4357 in the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Branch 47, is herebyDISMISSED,with costs against the private respondents. It is so ordered.

Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Footnotes