G.R. No. L-32141 July 29, 1988
PAULA VDA. DE DENOSO, GREGORIO DENOSO, ARACELI DENOSO MALATBALAT, assisted by her husband, PERFECTO MALATBALAT and NICANOR DENOSO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. HERMINIO C. MARIANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, JOSE SAN AGUSTIN, Clerk of Court and Ex-Oficio Sheriff of Manila, PERLITA GALLARDO, assisted by her husband AMADO N. BAUTISTA, and MILAGROS V. CAGUIOA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed an action for recovery of homestead land in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which dismissed their complaint. After their motion for reconsideration was denied, they filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond. The lower court, however, issued a writ of execution for costs. Petitioners challenged this via a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-30929), which referred it to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 43963-R). The appellate court dismissed this first petition due to petitioners’ failure to attach certified copies of pertinent pleadings as required by Rule 65. Their motion for reconsideration was denied, and their subsequent petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-31221) was also denied.
Undeterred, petitioners filed a second petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 44470 ) on January 2, 1970, involving the same parties and subject matter but this time with the required pleadings attached. The appellate court dismissed this second petition, ruling it was effectively a prohibited second motion for reconsideration of the final resolution in the first case and was barred by res judicata. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the second petition for certiorari on the grounds of res judicata and for being a belated second motion for reconsideration.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The resolution dismissing the first petition (CA-G.R. No. 43963-R) for failure to comply with the rules became final and executory. The second petition, filed long after that finality, was properly treated as an out-of-time second motion for reconsideration, which the court could no longer entertain.
On res judicata, petitioners argued the first dismissal was merely technical and not on the merits. The Court rejected this. Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, a dismissal for failure to comply with the rules or a court order has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless the court specifies otherwise. The appellate court’s dismissal order contained no such qualifying statement; thus, it was an adjudication on the merits. The principle of res judicata therefore bars the re-litigation of the same cause. Furthermore, the petition had become moot and academic as petitioners had partially satisfied the executed judgment for costs. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for finality in litigation and denied the petition.