CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com

Share

Search

Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Labor Relations, Volume II
of a 3-Volume Series 2017 Edition, 5th Revised Edition,

Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm

ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division

Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

August-1982 Jurisprudence

A.M. No. 921-MJ August 19, 1982 - ANTONIO C. LUCERO v. CARLOS B. SALAZAR

201 Phil. 396

A.M. No. P-1518 August 19, 1982 - EROTIDO O. DOMINGO v. ROMEO R. QUIMSON

A.M. No. 2247-MJ August 19, 1982 - PEDRO G. VALENTIN v. MARIANO P. GONZALES
201 Phil. 401

A.M. No. 2385-MJ August 19, 1982 - JONATHAN A. LUZURIAGA v. JESUS B. BROMO

201 Phil. 408

G.R. No. L-34081 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. ASSOC. OF PHILSUGIN EMPLOYEES

201 Phil. 416

G.R. No. L-35440 August 19, 1982 - RUFINO GERALDE v. ANDRES Y. SABIDO

201 Phil. 418

G.R. No. L-38352 August 19, 1982 - ADELA J. CAOS v. E.L. PERALTA

201 Phil. 422

G.R. No. L-46499 August 19, 1982 - TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHIL. AND ALLIED SERVICES v. AMADO G.
INCIONG

201 Phil. 427

G.R. No. L-48057 August 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO VENEZUELA
201 Phil. 433

G.R. No. L-50402 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. NATL. MINES &
ALLIED WORKERS UNION

201 Phil. 441

G.R. No. L-51194 August 19, 1982 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA, INC. v. AMADO G. INCIONG

201 Phil. 451

G.R. No. L-51494 August 19, 1982 - JUDRIC CANNING CORPORATION v. AMADO G. INCIONG

201 Phil. 456

G.R. No. L-52720 August 19, 1982 - UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

201 Phil. 463

G.R. No. L-58287 August 19, 1982 - EDUARDO VILLANUEVA v. LORENZO MOSQUEDA

201 Phil. 474

G.R. No. L-60067 August 19, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
201 Phil. 477

G.R. No. L-26940 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO, ET AL.

201 Phil. 481

G.R. No. L-27130 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREO v. JULIO VILLAMOR, ET AL.

201 Phil. 487

G.R. No. L-30697 August 2, 1982 - GILBERTO M. DUAVIT v. HERMINIO MARIANO

201 Phil. 488

G.R. No. L-35705 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO M. UMALI

201 Phil. 494

G.R. No. L-36222 August 21, 1982 - AUGUST O. BERNARTE, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
ET AL.

201 Phil. 513

G.R. No. L-39007 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO RAMIREZ

201 Phil. 519

G.R. No. L-40621 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO PADUNAN

201 Phil. 525

G.R. No. L-56962 August 21, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN

201 Phil. 541

G.R. No. L-58805 August 21, 1982 - ROMULO BOLAOS, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

201 Phil. 549

G.R. No. L-59493 August 21, 1982 - MANUEL SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 552

G.R. No. L-59823 August 21, 1982 - GETZ CORPORATION PHILS., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

201 Phil. 558

G.R. No. L-38753 August 25, 1982 - RAFAEL S. MERCADO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL,
BRANCH V, ET AL.

201 Phil. 565

G.R. No. L-44031 August 26, 1982 - SONIA VILLONES v. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET
AL.

201 Phil. 574

G.R. No. L-47099 August 26, 1982 - IGNACIO DELOS ANGELES v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM, ET AL.

201 Phil. 581

G.R. No. L-59582 August 26, 1982 - JESUS M. PAMAN v. RODRIGO DIAZ, ET AL.

201 Phil. 597

A.M. No. 78-MJ August 30, 1982 - BUENAVENTURA B. MARTINEZ v. TEODORO O. PAHIMULIN

201 Phil. 602

A.M. No. P-1722 August 30, 1982 - BENIGNO CABALLERO v. WALTER VILLANUEVA

201 Phil. 606

G.R. No. L-25933 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. FREE
TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

201 Phil. 611

G.R. No. L-27657 August 30, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARRE0 v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO

201 Phil. 623

G.R. No. L-29268 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, ET AL.

201 Phil. 632

G.R. No. L-33515 August 30, 1982 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUND FAMILARA

201 Phil. 635

G.R. No. L-37686 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN L. ARCENAL

201 Phil. 640

G.R. No. L-39298 August 30, 1982 - SULPICIO G. PAREDES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

201 Phil. 644

G.R. No. L-41700 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARTE SIBAYAN

201 Phil. 648

G.R. No. L-42447 August 30, 1982 - PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION v. SERAFIN E.
CAMILON

201 Phil. 658

G.R. No. L-42660 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO OLMEDILLO

201 Phil. 661

G.R. No. L-43427 August 30, 1982 - FELIPE N. CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 666

G.R. No. L-45472 August 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF SATURNINA AKUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 680

G.R. No. L-46762 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION v. AMADO GAT
INCIONG, ET AL.

201 Phil. 689

G.R. No. L-48975 August 30, 1982 - RAFAEL B. MAGPANTAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 702

G.R. No. L-54068 and 54142 August 30, 1982 - ST. LUKES HOSPITAL, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

201 Phil. 706

G.R. No. L-54094 August 30, 1982 - ALABANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. MANUEL E.
VALENZUELA, ET AL.

201 Phil. 727

G.R. No. L-54760 August 30, 1982 - MICAELA C. AGGABAO v. LETICIA U. GAMBOA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-55801 August 30, 1982 - LEONARDO MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-56973 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABENIANO LOBETANIA

201 Phil. 762

G.R. No. L-56995 August 30, 1982 - RAYMUNDO R. LIBRODO v. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR.

G.R. No. L-59548 August 30, 1982 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC. v. PACITA CAIZARES-NYE

201 Phil. 777

G.R. No. L-59821 August 30, 1982 - ROWENA F. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 782

G.R. No. L-60342 August 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO S. BANAAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 788

G.R. No. L-28237 August 31, 1982 - BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. KER & CO., LTD., ET AL.

201 Phil. 794

G.R. No. L-29971 August 31, 1982 - ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 803

G.R. No. L-32437 August 31, 1982 - SALANDANG PANGADIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF
COTABATO, BRANCH I, ET AL.

201 Phil. 813

G.R. No. L-36759 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECESIO IMBO

201 Phil. 821

G.R. No. L-37935 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE GANADO

201 Phil. 828

G.R. No. L-38687 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO HISUGAN

201 Phil. 836

G.R. No. L-39777 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX ATIENZA

201 Phil. 844

G.R. No. L-44707 August 31, 1982 - HICKOK MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 853

G.R. No. L-59887 August 31, 1982 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 857

G.R. No. L-60687 August 31, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MINERVA C.
GENOVEA

201 Phil. 862

G.R. No. L-60800 August 31, 1982 - JAIME PELEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

201 Phil. 873

G.R. No. L-60987 August 31, 1982 - SAMUEL BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

201 Phil. 879

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > August 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-35440 August
19, 1982 - RUFINO GERALDE v. ANDRES Y. SABIDO

201 Phil. 418:

G.R. No. L-35440 August 19, 1982 - RUFINO GERALDE v. ANDRES Y. SABIDO<br /><br />201 Phil. 418

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-35440. August 19, 1982.]

RUFINO GERALDE, IGLICERIO GERALDE, AMBROSIO GERALDE, SILVINO GERALDE, CLAUDIO GERALDE,
BASILISO GERALDE, SUSANO GERALDE, MATEA G. GICA, EUFRECINA G. MATA, DULCE G. NUEZ,
FELICIDAD G. BATALUNA, BERNARDA G. CANDIA, DAMIANA G. SIGA and FAUSTINA G. PILAPIL,
Petitioners, v. JUDGE ANDRES Y. SABIDO, Court of First Instance of Cebu, Danao City Branch X and FELIX
CAPUNGAN and Spouse, Respondents.

Jesus Yray, for Petitioners.

Augustine Vestil for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS

According to the petitioners, fourteen of them, they are the legal heirs of Dominga Salinas who died
intestate leaving an 852 square meter nipa land which adjoined a lot belonging to Ambrosio Geralde,
one of the petitioners. In 1949, Felix Capungan allegedly leased from petitioner Ambrosio Geralde the
latters lot. In 1968, Capungan secured a tax declaration for the said land and for a portion of Dominga
Salinas adjoining lot, On March 18, 1970, petitioners (except two of them) sued Capungan and his wife
for the recovery of Ambrosios land and the portion of Salinas land covered by the tax declaration and
for damages (Civil Case No, 136). After Capungan had answered the complaint, the trial court ordered
the petitioners nonsuited due to the repeated motions for postponement and dismissed the complaint.
The twelve petitioners did not appeal. Instead, the same twelve petitioners together with the two sons
of Salinas filed against Capungan another complaint for the recovery of said lot (Civil Case No. 167).
Capungan pleaded the defense of res judicata. Respondent judge dismissed the new complaint as to the
original twelve plaintiffs the same being barred by the decision in Civil Case No. 136, and held that the
two new plaintiffs could proceed with the case because they were not parties in the former case. That
order of dismissal was appealed by the 14 petitioners contending that the trial court erred in applying
the rule on res judicata..

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the dismissal order on the ground of res judicata holding that since
between the two cases there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action and the order of
dismissal which is deemed to be an adjudication on the merits, has been rendered by a competent
court, it has long become final and executory.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS; FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. For

non-appearance at the pre-trial, a plaintiff may be nonsuited and a dismissal of the complaint for failure
to prosecute had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits unless otherwise provided by the trial
court. No such provision was made in this case (Rule 17, Sec. 3, Rules of Court; Ouye v. American
President Lines, Ltd., 77 Phil. 635; Tuballa v. De la Cruz, 111 Phil. 335, 337; American Insurance Co. v.
Republic, 21 SCRA 464; Home Insurance Co. v. United States Lines Co., 21 SCRA 863).

2. ID.; ID.; JUDGMENTS; EFFECTS; RES JUDICATA; JOINING OF NEW PARTIES, EFFECT OF.
Between the two cases there is identity of parties, subject-matter and causes of action. The order of
dismissal was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the dismissal order which is deemed to
be an adjudication on the merits, had long become final and executory. The fact that in the first case
there were 12 plaintiffs and in the second case there were 14 plaintiffs is of no moment. A party may
not evade the application of the rule of res judicata by simply including additional parties in the
subsequent case or by not including as parties in the later case persons who were parties in the previous
suit. The joining of new parties does not remove the case from the operation of the rule on res judicata
if the party against whom the judgment is offered in evidence was a party in the first action; otherwise,
the parties might renew the litigation by simply joining new parties (Anticamara v. Ong, 82 SCRA 337).
The bar by former judgment, however, is effective against the 12 plaintiffs even if in the second case
two new plaintiffs were included. But the two new plaintiffs can continue the second case, which is not
barred as to them, because their supposed interest in the disputed land was not adjudicated in the first
case or had not yet become cosa juzgada.

DECISION
AQUINO, J.:

This case is about res judicata. According to the fourteen petitioners, they are the legal heirs of Dominga
Salinas who died intestate in Danao, Cebu in 1937, leaving an 852-square-meter "nipa-land" which
adjoined a lot with an area of 139 square meters belonging to Ambrosio Geralde and which is located in
Barrio Taboc-Looc, Danao City.

In 1949, Felix Capungan allegedly leased from petitioner Ambrosio Geralde the latters 139-square-
meter lot. In 1968 Capungan secured a tax declaration for the said 139 square meters of land and for a
portion of Domingas adjoining lot with an area of 221 square meters, or a total of 360 square meters.

On March 18, 1970, the petitioners (except two of them, namely, Claudio Geralde and Basiliso Geralde)
sued Capungan and his wife for the recovery of Ambrosios land and the portion of Dominga Salinas
land covered by the tax declaration in Capungans name and for damages (Civil Case No. 136). After
Capungan had answered the complaint, the trial court (Judge Jose R. Ramolete) in an order dated
October 26, 1970 non-suited the said petitioners or plaintiffs because of their repeated motions for the
postponement of the pre-trial and it dismissed their complaint (pp. 92-95, Rollo).cralawnad

The twelve plaintiffs (now petitioners) did not appeal from that dismissal order. Instead, about nine
months later, or on August 4, 1971, the same plaintiffs and two additional parties (two sons of Dominga
Salinas named Basilio and Claudio) filed against Capungan and his wife another complaint for the
recovery of the said 360 square meters of land and the annulment of the tax declaration in Capungans
name and damages (Civil Case No. 167).

To that complaint, Capungan in his answer pleaded the defense of res judicata and filed a motion to
dismiss on that ground. Respondent judge in his order of May 4, 1972 dismissed the new complaint as to
the twelve plaintiffs on the ground that it was barred by the order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 136 and
held that the two new plaintiffs, Claudio Geralde and Basiliso Geralde, could proceed with the case
because they were not parties in Civil Case No. 136.

That order of dismissal was appealed by the fourteen plaintiffs, now the petitioners, to this Court under
Republic Act No. 5440. Their contention is that the trial court erred in applying the rule on res judicata.
The appeal is devoid of merit. For nonappearance at the pre-trial, a plaintiff may be nonsuited and a
dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits
unless otherwise provided by the trial court. No such provision was made in this case (See sec. 3, Rule 17
and sec. 2, Rule 20, Rules of Court; Ouye v. American President Lines, Ltd., 77 Phil. 635; Tuballa v. De la
Cruz, 111 Phil. 335, 337, American Insurance Co. v. Republic, L-25478, October 23, 1967, 21 SCRA 464;
Home Insurance Co. v. United States Lines Co., L-25593, November 15, 1967, 21 SCRA 863.

Between the two cases there is identity of parties, subject-matter and causes of action. The order of
dismissal was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the dismissal order, which is deemed to
be an adjudication on the merits, had long become final and executory.

The fact that in the first case there were twelve plaintiffs and in the second case there were fourteen
plaintiffs is of no moment. A party may not evade the application of the rule of res judicata by simply
including additional parties in the subsequent case or by not including as parties in the later case
persons who were parties in the previous suit (Anticamara v. Ong, L-29689, April 14, 1978, 82 SCRA 337).

The joining of new parties does not remove the case from the operation of the rule on res judicata if the
party against whom the judgment is offered in evidence was a party in the first action; otherwise, the
parties might renew the litigation by simply joining new parties (Anticamara v. Ong, supra).

In other words, the bar by former judgment (res judicata) is effective against the twelve plaintiffs even if
in the second case two new plaintiffs were included. But the two new plaintiffs can continue the second
case, which is not barred as to them, because their supposed interest in the disputed land was not
adjudicated in the first case or had not yet become cosa juzgada.cralawnad

Consequently, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata as to
twelve of the herein fourteen petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-35440 August 19, 1982 - RUFINO GERALDE v. ANDRES Y. SABIDO<br /><br />201 Phil. 418

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908
1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933
1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958
1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983
1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

cralaw

Go!

Copyright 1998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com

RED