Lawyerly

GR No. 203355

2015-08-18

LEO R. ROSALES v. NEW A.N.J.H. ENTERPRISES

VELASCO JR., J.

On the matter of the application of the doctrine of res judicata, however, this Court is loath to sustain the finding of the appellate court and the NLRC. For res judicata to apply, the concurrence of the following requisites must be verified: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is-between the first and the second actions-identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.[35]

GR No. 183641

2015-04-22

BENJAMIN GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR

PERALTA, J.

In the case at bar, the Court finds that the four requisites of res judicata as above-mentioned exist. To illustrate: First, the prior case of Republic v. Guerrero[30] has already attained finality and has not been altered nor reversed. Second, it was rendered by this Court in affirmation of the earlier decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals, all of which have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Third, the judgment was.one on the merits, as it declared both the respective rights and duties of the parties based on disclosed facts,[31] and after the case had even undergone a fullblown trial. And fourth, the parties, subject matter and causes of action of both cases are the same, the parties in common being the protestants Bustamante or his heirs, on the one hand, and the protestee Guerrero on the other; the subject matter being the amendment or cancellation of Guerrero's title; and the cause of action being the alleged encroachment of Guerrero's titled property on property that allegedly belongs to the Bustamantes. All the aforementioned is evident through a simple reading of this Court's decision in Republic v. Guerrero[32] and the protest[33] currently pending with the LMB. Hence, in filing the said subsequent protest, private respondents Cora Bustamante and the heirs of Marcelo and Angelina Bustamante committed forum shopping.

GR No. 168616

2015-01-28

HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LA SAVOIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

In turn, prior judgment or res judicata bars a subsequent case when the following requisites concur: "(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is — between the first and the second actions — identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action."[64]

GR No. 197530

2014-07-09

ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN

LEONEN, J.

In turn, prior judgment or res judicata bars a subsequent case when the following requisites concur: "(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is between the first and the second actions identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action."[86]

GR No. 195580

2014-04-21

NARRA NICKEL MINING v. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP.

VELASCO JR., J.

In turn, prior judgment or res judicata bars a subsequent case when the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is between the first and the second actions identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.[184]

GR No. 175799

2011-11-28

NM ROTHSCHILD v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is basic that "[a] cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another."[18] Its elements are the following: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respect the plaintiff's right, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of such right.[19] We have held that to sustain a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.[20]

GR No. 159788

2009-12-23

SOTERO ROY LEONERO v. SPS. MARCELINO B. BARBA

PERALTA, J.

It is not correct to say that petitioners were deprived of their day in court when the RTC dismissed the complaint even before conducting trial on the merits. As held in Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla,[5] the court, motu proprio, may render judgment on the pleadings based on the parties' admissions in their pleadings and even without introduction of evidence, if and when these amply establish that there is insufficiency of factual basis for the action.[6]

GR No. 179556

2009-02-13

CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ v. CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Nonetheless, the Court can no longer delve into the legality and validity of the Order dated 31 May 2000 of the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, dismissing Civil Case No. 97-84159 for petitioner's failure to prosecute. Petitioner no longer appealed the denial of her Motion for Reconsideration of the said order of dismissal, thus, allowing it to become final and executory. Having failed to appeal from that judgment, petitioner may not abuse court processes by re-filing the same case to obviate the conclusive effects of dismissal. It now operates as res judicata.[27]

GR No. 164242

2008-11-28

DESTILERIA LIMTUACO v. ADVERTISING BOARD OF PHILIPPINES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.[14] The principle applies even if the reliefs sought in the two cases may be different.[15] Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.[16]

GR No. 164517

2008-06-30

BF CORPORATION v. MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines "cause of action" as an act or omission by which one party violates a right of another. It has three elements: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respect the right of the plaintiff, and (3) a breach of the defendant's duty.[10]

GR NO. 137162

2007-01-24

CORAZON L. ESCUETA v. RUFINA LIM

AZCUNA, J.

"An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof."[6] The "factual admission in the pleadings on record [dispenses] with the need x x x to present evidence to prove the admitted fact."[7] It cannot, therefore, "be controverted by the party making such admission, and [is] conclusive"[8] as to them. All proofs submitted by them "contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether objection is interposed by a party or not."[9] Besides, there is no showing that a palpable mistake has been committed in their admission or that no admission has been made by them.

GR NO. 141528

2006-10-31

OSCAR P. MALLION v. EDITHA ALCANTARA

AZCUNA, J.

Res judicata in this sense requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is -- between the first and the second actions -- identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.[15]

GR NO. 146313

2006-10-31

FLORENCIO ORENDAIN v. BF HOMES

VELASCO, JR., J.

The first, known as "bar by prior judgment," is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. The second, known as "conclusiveness of judgment," issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[32] A case is barred by prior judgment when the following requisites are present: "(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is-between the first and second actions-identity of parties, of subject matter, and causes of action."[33]

GR NO. 166849

2006-09-05

ROLANDO JUANI v. ROBERTO G. ALARCON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Expectedly, ordinary laymen may not be knowledgeable about the intricacies of the law which is the reason why lawyers are retained to make the battle in court fair and square. And when a party retains the services of a lawyer, he is bound by his counsel's decisions regarding the conduct of the case. This is true especially where he does not complain against the manner his counsel handles the case. The general rule is that the client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel, save when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. This was not particularly attendant in the case at bar. (Emphasis supplied.) The issue having been laid to rest in a decision that had become final and executory, this Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the same. Time and time again, this Court has reiterated that relitigation of issues already settled merely burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier cases.[36]

GR NO. 160994

2006-07-27

WILFREDO v. PAULO FLORESCA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

To invoke res judicata, absolute identity of parties is not required. A substantial identity of parties is sufficient. And there is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and that in the second one, even if the latter party was not impleaded in the first.[27] As his privies-in-interest or successors-in-interest, the petitioners clearly had a community of interest with that of Paulo who was party to Civil Case No. 832-BG. Res judicata applies and the petitioners' argument that the judgment based on compromise agreement rendered in Civil Case No. 832-BG was null and void because they were not impleaded as indispensable parties thereto must perforce fail.

GR NO. 164797

2006-02-13

JOSEFINA M. CRUZ v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

For failure of the plaintiffs as well as counsel to appear on several settings despite due notices, precisely for the reception of plaintiffs' evidence, upon motion of the defendant through Atty. Mark Arcilla, this case is dismissed for failure to prosecute.[14] It is clear from the afore-mentioned order that said case was dismissed, upon petitioners' motion, for failure of private respondents and their counsel to attend several scheduled hearings for the presentation of their evidence. Since the order did not contain a qualification whether same is with or without prejudice, following Section 3, it is deemed to be with prejudice and shall have the effect of an adjudication on the merits. A ruling based on a motion to dismiss, without any trial on the merits or formal presentation of evidence, can still be a judgment on the merits.[15]

	GR No. 203355 2015-08-18	LEO R. ROSALES v. NEW A.N.J.H. ENTERPRISES VELASCO JR., J.
On the matter of the application of the doctrine of res judicata, however, this Court is loath to sustain the finding of the appellate court and the NLRC. For res judicata to apply, the concurrence of the following requisites must be verified: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is-between the first and the second actions-identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.[35]
	GR No. 183641 2015-04-22	BENJAMIN GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR PERALTA, J.
In the case at bar, the Court finds that the four requisites of res judicata as above-mentioned exist. To illustrate: First, the prior case of Republic v. Guerrero[30] has already attained finality and has not been altered nor reversed. Second, it was rendered by this Court in affirmation of the earlier decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals, all of which have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Third, the judgment was.one on the merits, as it declared both the respective rights and duties of the parties based on disclosed facts,[31] and after the case had even undergone a fullblown trial. And fourth, the parties, subject matter and causes of action of both cases are the same, the parties in common being the protestants Bustamante or his heirs, on the one hand, and the protestee Guerrero on the other; the subject matter being the amendment or cancellation of Guerrero's title; and the cause of action being the alleged encroachment of Guerrero's titled property on property that allegedly belongs to the Bustamantes. All the aforementioned is evident through a simple reading of this Court's decision in Republic v. Guerrero[32] and the protest[33] currently pending with the LMB. Hence, in filing the said subsequent protest, private respondents Cora Bustamante and the heirs of Marcelo and Angelina Bustamante committed forum shopping.
	GR No. 168616 2015-01-28	HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LA SAVOIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
In turn, prior judgment or res judicata bars a subsequent case when the following requisites concur: "(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is — between the first and the second actions — identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action."[64]
	GR No. 197530 2014-07-09	ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN LEONEN, J.
In turn, prior judgment or res judicata bars a subsequent case when the following requisites concur: "(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is between the first and the second actions identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action."[86]
	GR No. 195580 2014-04-21	NARRA NICKEL MINING v. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP. VELASCO JR., J.
In turn, prior judgment or res judicata bars a subsequent case when the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is between the first and the second actions identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.[184]
	GR No. 175799 2011-11-28	NM ROTHSCHILD v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is basic that "[a] cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another."[18] Its elements are the following: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respect the plaintiff's right, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of such right.[19] We have held that to sustain a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.[20]
	GR No. 159788 2009-12-23	SOTERO ROY LEONERO v. SPS. MARCELINO B. BARBA PERALTA, J.
It is not correct to say that petitioners were deprived of their day in court when the RTC dismissed the complaint even before conducting trial on the merits. As held in Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla,[5] the court, motu proprio, may render judgment on the pleadings based on the parties' admissions in their pleadings and even without introduction of evidence, if and when these amply establish that there is insufficiency of factual basis for the action.[6]
	GR No. 179556 2009-02-13	CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ v. CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nonetheless, the Court can no longer delve into the legality and validity of the Order dated 31 May 2000 of the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, dismissing Civil Case No. 97-84159 for petitioner's failure to prosecute. Petitioner no longer appealed the denial of her Motion for Reconsideration of the said order of dismissal, thus, allowing it to become final and executory. Having failed to appeal from that judgment, petitioner may not abuse court processes by re-filing the same case to obviate the conclusive effects of dismissal. It now operates as res judicata.[27]
	GR No. 164242 2008-11-28	DESTILERIA LIMTUACO v. ADVERTISING BOARD OF PHILIPPINES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.[14] The principle applies even if the reliefs sought in the two cases may be different.[15] Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.[16]
	GR No. 164517 2008-06-30	BF CORPORATION v. MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines "cause of action" as an act or omission by which one party violates a right of another. It has three elements: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respect the right of the plaintiff, and (3) a breach of the defendant's duty.[10]
	GR NO. 137162 2007-01-24	CORAZON L. ESCUETA v. RUFINA LIM AZCUNA, J.
"An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof."[6] The "factual admission in the pleadings on record [dispenses] with the need x x x to present evidence to prove the admitted fact."[7] It cannot, therefore, "be controverted by the party making such admission, and [is] conclusive"[8] as to them. All proofs submitted by them "contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether objection is interposed by a party or not."[9] Besides, there is no showing that a palpable mistake has been committed in their admission or that no admission has been made by them.
	GR NO. 141528 2006-10-31	OSCAR P. MALLION v. EDITHA ALCANTARA AZCUNA, J.
Res judicata in this sense requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is -- between the first and the second actions -- identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.[15]
	GR NO. 146313 2006-10-31	FLORENCIO ORENDAIN v. BF HOMES VELASCO, JR., J.
The first, known as "bar by prior judgment," is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. The second, known as "conclusiveness of judgment," issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[32] A case is barred by prior judgment when the following requisites are present: "(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is-between the first and second actions-identity of parties, of subject matter, and causes of action."[33]
	GR NO. 166849 2006-09-05	ROLANDO JUANI v. ROBERTO G. ALARCON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Expectedly, ordinary laymen may not be knowledgeable about the intricacies of the law which is the reason why lawyers are retained to make the battle in court fair and square. And when a party retains the services of a lawyer, he is bound by his counsel's decisions regarding the conduct of the case. This is true especially where he does not complain against the manner his counsel handles the case. The general rule is that the client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel, save when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. This was not particularly attendant in the case at bar. (Emphasis supplied.) The issue having been laid to rest in a decision that had become final and executory, this Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the same. Time and time again, this Court has reiterated that relitigation of issues already settled merely burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier cases.[36]
	GR NO. 160994 2006-07-27	WILFREDO v. PAULO FLORESCA CALLEJO, SR., J.
To invoke res judicata, absolute identity of parties is not required. A substantial identity of parties is sufficient. And there is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and that in the second one, even if the latter party was not impleaded in the first.[27] As his privies-in-interest or successors-in-interest, the petitioners clearly had a community of interest with that of Paulo who was party to Civil Case No. 832-BG. Res judicata applies and the petitioners' argument that the judgment based on compromise agreement rendered in Civil Case No. 832-BG was null and void because they were not impleaded as indispensable parties thereto must perforce fail.
	GR NO. 164797 2006-02-13	JOSEFINA M. CRUZ v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For failure of the plaintiffs as well as counsel to appear on several settings despite due notices, precisely for the reception of plaintiffs' evidence, upon motion of the defendant through Atty. Mark Arcilla, this case is dismissed for failure to prosecute.[14] It is clear from the afore-mentioned order that said case was dismissed, upon petitioners' motion, for failure of private respondents and their counsel to attend several scheduled hearings for the presentation of their evidence. Since the order did not contain a qualification whether same is with or without prejudice, following Section 3, it is deemed to be with prejudice and shall have the effect of an adjudication on the merits. A ruling based on a motion to dismiss, without any trial on the merits or formal presentation of evidence, can still be a judgment on the merits.[15]

LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK v. BENEDICTO C. CONQUILLA