G.R. No. 121182; October 2, 2000
VICTORIO ESPERAS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF PONCIANO ALDAS, represented by ANASTACIO MAGTABOG and JOSEFINA MAGTABOG, respondents.

FACTS

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palo, Leyte, dismissed the complaint for recovery of possession filed by the Heirs of Ponciano Aldas against Victorio Esperas. The Heirs perfected their appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 29581. Esperas later moved to dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute. He initially filed this motion erroneously with the RTC, which granted it. The Heirs challenged this via a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus in the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 22695. The CA’s Special Eighth Division nullified the RTC’s dismissal orders for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that such a motion should be filed with the CA. Esperas then re-filed his motion to dismiss in CA-G.R. SP No. 22695, which the same Special Eighth Division granted. The Heirs’ appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 101461) was dismissed for being filed out of time, and this dismissal became final.
Subsequently, the CA’s Second Division, handling the original ordinary appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 29581), issued a notice for the Heirs to file their brief. Esperas moved to dismiss, arguing this appeal was already barred by the final dismissal in CA-G.R. SP No. 22695. The Second Division denied his motion, holding that the special civil action (CA-G.R. SP No. 22695) was distinct from the ordinary appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 29581), thereby allowing the appeal to proceed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals’ Second Division acted with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and refusing to dismiss the ordinary appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 29581), which involved the same case and parties as a previously dismissed special civil action (CA-G.R. SP No. 22695), thereby effectively reversing a final order of a co-equal division.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA Second Division’s resolutions. The Court held that the doctrine of res judicata squarely applied. The elements for res judicata were present: there was a prior final judgment (the Special Eighth Division’s order dismissing the appeal in CA-G.R. SP No. 22695, which attained finality upon the Supreme Court’s dismissal of G.R. No. 101461); the court rendering it had jurisdiction; it was a judgment on the merits; and there was identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between CA-G.R. SP No. 22695 and CA-G.R. CV No. 29581. The test for identity of causes of action is whether the same evidence would support both. Here, the evidence concerning the dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute was identical. The mere difference in procedural nomenclature—one being a special civil action and the other an ordinary appeal—did not circumvent the application of res judicata. By denying the motion to dismiss, the Second Division effectively reversed a final order of a co-equal division, an act constituting grave abuse of discretion. The controversy had already been terminated by the final dismissal of the appeal; thus, the ordinary appeal had become moot and academic.