GR 28115; (October, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28115 October 30, 1970
APOLINARIO OKOL and EVARISTO ALCANTARA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. TAYUG RURAL BANK, INC., VALERIANO MAGNAAN and ENRIQUE CO SUE, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellants Apolinario Okol and Evaristo Alcantara filed a complaint on January 23, 1966, principally to secure a judgment releasing them from their obligation on promissory notes that were the subject of a final and executory decision in Civil Case No. T-1070. They based their claim on a deed of assignment dated January 4, 1966, allegedly executed in favor of defendant Tayug Rural Bank through Enrique Co Sue, which they argued extinguished their obligation by novation. The appellants received a copy of the decision in Civil Case No. T-1070 on February 17, 1966, but took no action to seek relief from or appeal the judgment. The decision became final and executory, and a writ of execution was ordered on April 21, 1966. Prior to a scheduled execution sale on October 18, 1966, the appellants filed the present case on September 23, 1966, seeking to restrain the execution. The deed of assignment attached to their complaint did not show that Co Sue was acting for and on behalf of the appellee Bank. The defendants-appellees filed a motion to dismiss based on, among others, bar by prior judgment, which the lower court granted in its order of April 24, 1967.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of bar by prior judgment, given that the judgment in Civil Case No. T-1070 had become final and executory.
RULING
Yes, the lower court’s order of dismissal is affirmed. The complaint was correctly dismissed on the ground of bar by prior judgment. The judgment in Civil Case No. T-1070 had already become final and executory, and the appellants failed to avail themselves of appropriate legal remedies to challenge it before it reached finality. The doctrine of res judicata applies, as it is a fundamental principle that a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive upon the parties and should forever set the controversy at rest. The appellants’ attempt to relitigate the obligation through a new complaint, based on an alleged deed of assignment that did not establish the third party’s authority to act for the bank, would deprive the prior final judgment of its force and effectivity. Public policy demands that judgments become final at a definite date to end controversies.