GR L 35440; (August, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35440 August 19, 1982
RUFINO GERALDE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUDGE ANDRES Y. SABIDO, Court of First Instance of Cebu, and FELIX CAPUNGAN and Spouse, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, claiming to be heirs of Dominga Salinas, initiated Civil Case No. 136 in 1970 against respondents Felix Capungan and his spouse. They sought to recover a 360-square-meter parcel of land, alleging Capungan wrongfully secured a tax declaration for it. The trial court, due to the plaintiffs’ repeated motions for postponement of the pre-trial, non-suited them and dismissed their complaint for failure to prosecute in an order dated October 26, 1970. The twelve plaintiffs did not appeal this dismissal order, allowing it to become final and executory.
Approximately nine months later, on August 4, 1971, the same twelve plaintiffs, joined by two additional parties (Claudio and Basiliso Geralde), filed a second complaint, Civil Case No. 167, against the same defendants for the recovery of the identical 360-square-meter property. The respondents pleaded res judicata. The respondent judge dismissed the new complaint as to the twelve original plaintiffs, ruling it was barred by the prior dismissal, but allowed the case to proceed for the two new plaintiffs who were not parties to the first case.
ISSUE
Whether the second complaint filed by the twelve original petitioners is barred by the principle of res judicata.
RULING
Yes, the second complaint is barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order of dismissal. The dismissal in Civil Case No. 136 for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, operates as an adjudication on the merits, as the trial court did not otherwise provide. This dismissal order had long become final.
The elements of res judicata are present: identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the two cases. The fact that two new plaintiffs were added in the second case does not negate the application of the rule against the twelve original plaintiffs. A party cannot evade res judicata by merely joining new parties in a subsequent action. The bar is effective against parties to the first action, regardless of new co-plaintiffs in the second. Consequently, the complaint was correctly dismissed as to the twelve petitioners. However, the two new plaintiffs, not being parties to the first case, could rightfully proceed with their claim, as res judicata did not bind them.