GR 106037; (June, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106037 June 15, 1993
RICARDO C. ROA and EMETERIO C. ROA, JR., petitioners, vs. PH CREDIT CORPORATION, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
On July 8, 1982, PH Credit Corporation filed a Complaint with Replevin (Civil Case No. 8651) against Cagayan de Oro Management Corporation (CMC) to recover possession of chattels mortgaged to secure a loan of P484,351.14. CMC filed a counterclaim. On July 29, 1983, PH Credit filed a deficiency judgment suit (Civil Case No. 83-19224) against CMC and petitioners Emeterio Roa, Jr. and Ricardo Roa, based on three promissory notes, alleging a balance of P2,810,734.30 after foreclosure of mortgages. The Court of Appeals dismissed Civil Case No. 83-19224 without prejudice, citing identity with the replevin suit and prematurity of the action. On August 27, 1987, the Regional Trial Court dismissed Civil Case No. 8651 for failure to prosecute. On August 22, 1988, PH Credit filed a second deficiency judgment suit (Civil Case No. 88-45895) against petitioners, impleading them due to CMC’s insolvency. Petitioners moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 88-45895 on grounds of res judicata and/or litis pendentia. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ certiorari petition challenging this denial. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 88-45895 is barred by the principle of res judicata due to the prior dismissal of Civil Case No. 8651 (the replevin suit) and Civil Case No. 83-19224 (the first deficiency judgment suit).
RULING
No, the complaint in Civil Case No. 88-45895 is not barred by res judicata. For res judicata to apply, there must be: (1) a prior final judgment; (2) rendered by a court with jurisdiction; (3) on the merits; and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, causes of action, and reliefs between the two actions. First, regarding Civil Case No. 8651 (replevin), there is no identity of subject matter, causes of action, or relief. That case involved recovery of specific chattels to foreclose a mortgage securing P484,351.14, while Civil Case No. 88-45895 is an action for a deficiency judgment on three distinct promissory notes. Second, regarding Civil Case No. 83-19224 (first deficiency suit), its dismissal by the Court of Appeals was not a judgment on the merits but was based on the pendency of the replevin suit and the prematurity of the action, and it was expressly dismissed without prejudice to refiling. Therefore, the elements of res judicata are not satisfied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.