Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OSCAR P. MALLION v. EDITHA ALCANTARA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 183641 2015-04-22	BENJAMIN GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR PERALTA, J.
Similarly, under the basic principle of res judicata - which means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment" - the rule is that a fmal 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.[26] Such points or matters should not be litigated upon or invoked again as such relitigation merely burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier cases.[27]
	GR No. 156185 2011-09-12	CATALINA B. CHU v. SPS. FERNANDO C. CUNANAN BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioners were not at liberty to split their demand to enforce or rescind the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage and to prosecute piecemeal or present only a portion of the grounds upon which a special relief was sought under the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage, and then to leave the rest to be presented in another suit; otherwise, there would be no end to litigation.[28] Their splitting violated the policy against multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective was to avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the courts. Their contravention of the policy merited the dismissal of Civil Case No. 12251 on the ground of bar by res judicata.
	GR No. 167426 2009-01-12	CHRIS GARMENTS CORPORATION v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS QUISUMBING, J.
Second. The doctrine of res judicata provides 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.[20] The elements of res judicata are: (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 action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.[21]
	GR No. 178271 2008-10-31	BANCO DE ORO-EPCI v. ZENAIDA R. DAGUNA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Splitting a cause of action is the act of dividing a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, and bringing suit for one of such parts only, intending to reserve the rest for another separate action.[19]