GR 161286; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161286 . August 31, 2005
SPOUSES NARCISO RAYOAN and PARALUMAN TOLENTINO, Petitioners, vs. ALLAN FRONDA and SPOUSES CHARLITO VALDEZ and AVELINA VALDEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Rayoan filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 728) for annulment of title and reconveyance, alleging they merely delivered their title as loan security and that a falsified deed of sale was used to transfer the property to respondent Fronda, who then sold it to respondent Spouses Valdez. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed this first case for failure to prosecute after petitioners did not set it for pre-trial for nine months following the filing of the answer. This dismissal order became final as petitioners did not appeal or move for reconsideration.
Subsequently, petitioners filed a second complaint (Civil Case No. 780) containing essentially identical allegations. They candidly informed the court of the prior dismissed case, arguing its dismissal was not expressly “with prejudice.” Respondents moved to dismiss the second case on the ground of res judicata. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, contending they were not furnished a copy of the answer in the second case, thus they could not be faulted for not setting pre-trial.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 780, but on the ground of res judicata, not failure to prosecute. The legal logic is anchored on Rule 17, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that a dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication on the merits unless the court declares otherwise. The RTC in the first case (Civil Case No. 728) dismissed it for failure to prosecute without specifying it was without prejudice. Consequently, by operation of the rule, that dismissal was deemed an adjudication on the merits. Since petitioners allowed that dismissal to become final, it constitutes a prior judgment that bars the filing of the second “identical” action. The principle of res judicata prevents the re-litigation of the same cause of action between the same parties. The Court found petitioners’ procedural argument regarding the copy of the answer in the second case irrelevant, as the decisive bar was the final and executory dismissal of the first case. Thus, the second complaint was correctly dismissed.