GR 126443; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126443 February 28, 2000
FLORDESVINDA C. MADARIETA, ANGEL JOSE C. MADARIETA, and PHIL BRISCO C. MADARIETA, petitioners, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 28, MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, DOMINGO IGNILAN, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are the heirs of Jose L. Madarieta II, who filed a complaint for quieting of title against respondents in 1977. After trial on the merits, the presiding judge retired without rendering a decision. The new judge, who did not preside over the trial, ordered the parties to submit memoranda. Despite two orders and extensions, both parties failed to comply. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the case in 1991 for failure to submit memoranda, treating it as an abandonment of their interest.
More than four years later, in 1996, petitioners filed a new complaint for revival of the original action. The trial court dismissed this revival complaint, ruling it was barred by res judicata due to the final dismissal of the first case, and that laches had set in due to petitioners’ unreasonable delay. Petitioners sought certiorari, arguing res judicata was inapplicable.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint for revival of the dismissed civil case is barred by res judicata.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not apply but nevertheless affirmed the dismissal, as the action for revival was barred by the finality of the prior dismissal order. For res judicata to apply, the judgment must be on the merits. Here, the dismissal of the first case (Civil Case No. 245) was not an adjudication on the merits but a dismissal based on a technicality—the parties’ failure to submit memoranda. The Court noted such dismissal was improper, as memoranda are not indispensable for decision, and the case had already been submitted for decision after trial.
However, the petition must be denied. The order of dismissal became final and executory when petitioners failed to appeal or otherwise challenge it within the reglementary period. Upon finality, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case. An action for revival is no longer viable after a dismissal order attains finality. The proper remedy to resuscitate the claim was to institute a completely new action, not a complaint for revival. Petitioners’ inaction for over four years allowed the dismissal to become final, precluding any further judicial relief on the same dismissed case.