G.R. No. 79981 ; April 2, 1991
ENGRACIA BACATE AMBERTI, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE EFICIO B. ACOSTA, Presiding Judge of Branch CLV, Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Metro Manila, and MARIA TERESA AMBERTI TALAG, represented by her husband/attorney-in-fact WILFREDO M. TALAG, respondents.

FACTS

Pietro Amberti died, leaving a holographic will naming his daughter, Maria Teresa, as his universal heir. The will was probated, and his widow, Engracia, was initially appointed executrix. She was later removed by the probate court for maladministration, including failure to render an accounting for over eight years, and was replaced by Maria Teresa. After paying estate taxes, Maria Teresa moved to terminate the proceedings and be declared the absolute owner of the estate. The RTC granted this motion in an order dated January 10, 1986. Engracia’s motion for reconsideration, filed months later, was denied on November 4, 1986, for being filed after the judgment had attained finality.
Engracia first challenged these orders via a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 10786), alleging deprivation of due process. However, before the respondent could comment, she filed a motion to withdraw the petition, stating she was no longer interested in pursuing it. The CA granted the withdrawal and dismissed the petition on January 9, 1987. Just three days later, on January 12, 1987, Engracia filed a new petition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 10991), this time framed as an original action for annulment of judgment, seeking to nullify the same January 10 and November 4, 1986 orders on grounds of extrinsic fraud and inclusion of her alleged exclusive properties in the estate inventory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Engracia’s second petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 10991) on the ground of res judicata.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the second petition was barred by res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.
The legal logic is clear: Engracia’s voluntary withdrawal of her first certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 10786) before an answer or comment was filed resulted in a dismissal with prejudice. Applying the Rules of Court by analogy, such a withdrawal has the same effect as a dismissal on the merits, rendering the questioned RTC orders immediately final and executory. Consequently, she was estopped from relitigating the same issue. The second petition, though captioned as an original action for annulment of judgment, sought the identical relief—the annulment of the same two RTC orders—and was based on substantially the same grounds, merely varying the form of action. A party cannot evade the effects of res judicata by simply adopting a different method of presenting the same case. Therefore, the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the subsequent petition.