G.R. No. 116941 , May 31, 2001
TIRSO ANTIPORDA, JR., JULIETA C. BERTUBEN, IDE TILLAH, SERGIO OSMEÑA III, JEIME CALPO, EMMANUEL CRUZ, RICARDO DE LA CRUZ, and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., ENRIQUE M. COJUANGCO, ESTELITO P. MENDOZA, GABRIEL L. VILLAREAL and RAFAEL G. ABELLO, respondents.

FACTS

In April and May 1986, the PCGG sequestered shares of forty-two corporations upon a prima facie finding they were ill-gotten, alleging these corporations, beneficially owned/controlled by Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., held a block of SMC shares sufficient to elect at least seven directors. Through counsel Estelito P. Mendoza, the corporations filed a petition (SB No. 0110, “Primavera Farms, et al. v. PCGG”) with the Sandiganbayan seeking to lift the writs of sequestration. They initially raised two grounds but later withdrew the first ground (lack of prima facie determination) and opted for resolution solely on the second ground: that the writs were automatically lifted per Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution as the PCGG failed to file a judicial action within six months from the Constitution’s ratification. On April 8, 1992, the Sandiganbayan Third Division granted the petition and lifted the writs, ruling that no judicial action was filed by August 2, 1987, and the issue could be decided as a matter of law without needing PCGG’s evidence.
The PCGG assailed this Resolution via a petition for review (G.R. No. 104850, “PCGG v. Agricultural Consultancy Services, Inc.”) and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on April 20, 1992, enjoining the corporations from voting the subject shares at the April 21, 1992 stockholders’ meeting. Consequently, the respondent corporations were not allowed to vote. At the April 21, 1993 stockholders’ meeting, this Court again issued a TRO restraining the corporations from voting. For the 1993-1994 term, the PCGG voted the sequestered shares, resulting in the election of government nominees to all 15 seats on the SMC Board; the Cojuangco group candidates failed to get elected.
On May 13, 1993, the losing Cojuangco group candidates filed a petition for quo warranto (Civil Case No. 0150, “Enrique Cojuangco, et al. v. Jaime Calpo, et al.”) with the Sandiganbayan, contending the government-nominated directors were not qualified as they did not own 5,000 SMC shares as required by the by-laws, and the PCGG had no authority to vote the sequestered shares. The Sandiganbayan Second Division dismissed this petition on February 28, 1994, ruling the government nominees were mere representatives/agents of the PCGG, which held the shares in trust for the rightful owners, and thus the ownership requirement did not apply; it also held the issue of the PCGG’s authority to vote was already settled in Baseco v. PCGG.
Subsequently, after the April 19, 1994 SMC stockholders’ meeting where the PCGG again voted the sequestered shares and elected its nominees (including petitioners Antiporda, Bertuben, Tillah, Osmeña, Calpo, Cruz, and de la Cruz), the Cojuangco group filed another petition for quo warranto (Civil Case No. 0162, “Eduardo M. Cojuangco, et al. v. Tirso Antiporda, et al.”) in May 1994, seeking nullification of that election. Petitioners (the elected directors and PCGG) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the petition was barred by res judicata due to the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 0150. The Sandiganbayan Second Division denied the motion to dismiss in a Resolution dated August 16, 1994, holding that res judicata did not apply because the causes of action in the two cases were different: the first (0150) questioned the 1993 election, while the second (0162) questioned the 1994 election. Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari assailing that denial.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 0162 on the ground of res judicata.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The petition for certiorari is granted, and the Sandiganbayan Resolution of August 16, 1994 is annulled and set aside. Civil Case No. 0162 is ordered dismissed.
The doctrine of res judicata applies. For res judicata to bar a subsequent case, the following must concur: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions. All these elements are present.
First, the February 28, 1994 Resolution in Civil Case No. 0150, which dismissed the petition for quo warranto against the 1993 election, had become final and executory, as no appeal was taken therefrom. Second, the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. Third, the dismissal was a judgment on the merits, as it ruled on the very issues raised regarding the qualifications of the PCGG-nominated directors and the PCGG’s authority to vote the sequestered shares.
Fourth, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. The parties in both cases are substantially identical: the petitioners in Civil Case No. 0162 (the 1994 directors) are the successors-in-interest of the respondents in Civil Case No. 0150 (the 1993 directors), and the respondents in 0162 (the Cojuangco group) are the petitioners in 0150. The subject matter is the same: the validity of the election of the PCGG-nominated directors to the SMC Board. The cause of action is identical: the Cojuangco group’s claim to office based on the alleged disqualification of the PCGG nominees (for not owning 5,000 shares) and the alleged lack of authority of the PCGG to vote the sequestered shares. The Sandiganbayan erred in holding the causes of action were different merely because they involved elections in different years. The root cause of the Cojuangco group’s exclusion was the same: the PCGG’s act of voting the sequestered shares. A single wrong gives rise to a single cause of action, and the Cojuangco group should have appealed the adverse judgment in the first case instead of filing a new one for each subsequent election. The ruling in the first case constituted res judicata on the issues raised.