Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FERDINAND S. AGUSTIN v. SPS. MARIANO AND PRESENTACION DELOS SANTOS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 184079 2013-04-17	SPS. ARMANDO SILVERIO v. SPS. RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Agustin v. Delos Santos,[46] the Court cited three tests to verify whether there is identity of causes of action for purposes of applying the principle of res judicata. The first test is the "absence of inconsistency test" where it is determined whether the judgment sought will be inconsistent with the prior judgment. If no inconsistency is shown, the prior judgment shall not constitute a bar to subsequent actions.[47] The more common approach in ascertaining identity of causes of action is the "same evidence test," whereby the following question serves as a sufficient criterion: "would the same evidence support and establish both the present and former causes of action?" If the answer is in the affirmative, then the prior judgment is a bar to the subsequent action; conversely, it is not.[48] Aside from the "absence of inconsistency test" and "same evidence test," we have also ruled that a previous judgment operates as a bar to a subsequent one when it had touched on a matter already decided, or if the parties are in effect "litigating for the same thing."[49]
	GR No. 187122 2012-02-22	NEGROS SLASHERS v. ALVIN L. TENG VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioners are correct as to the first two requisites of forum shopping. First, there is identity of parties involved: Negros Slashers Inc. and respondent Teng. Second, there is identity of rights asserted i.e., the right of management to terminate employment and the right of an employee against illegal termination. However, the third requisite of forum shopping is missing in this case. Any judgment or ruling of the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA will not amount to res judicata. As defined in Agustin v. Delos Santos,[26]
	GR No. 169913 2011-06-08	HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
Citing Agustin v. Delos Santos,[78] this Court, in Spouses Antonio v. Sayman,[79] expounded on the difference between the two aspects of res judicata: The principle of res judicata is applicable by way of (1) "bar by prior judgment" and (2) "conclusiveness of judgment." This Court had occasion to explain the difference between these two aspects of res judicata as follows: