G.R. No. 83251 ; January 23, 1991
Renato B. Suarez, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Zenaida Baltazar as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, Pasig, Metro Manila, and Rosemarie Manese, respondents.

FACTS

On December 11, 1986, private respondent Rosemarie Manese filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Sp. Proc. No. 734-J) against petitioner Renato Suarez and his relatives, seeking custody of her minor child. During the presentation of her evidence, Manese filed a motion to dismiss the habeas corpus petition without prejudice, intending to file a separate custody action under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. The trial court, however, granted the motion but dismissed the case with prejudice on February 24, 1987.
Subsequently, on May 27, 1987, Manese filed a new petition for custody and support (Sp. Proc. No. 840-J). Suarez moved to dismiss this new action on the ground of res judicata, arguing the prior dismissal with prejudice was a bar. The trial court denied his motion and later granted Manese temporary visitorial and Christmas custody rights. Suarez then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the order dismissing the habeas corpus case with prejudice constitutes res judicata, thereby barring the subsequent custody action.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The order of dismissal in the habeas corpus case is null and void and cannot operate as res judicata. For res judicata to apply, the prior judgment must be valid. The dismissal order violated the constitutional mandate requiring courts to clearly state the facts and law upon which a decision is based. Furthermore, the circumstances rendered the order whimsical and issued with grave abuse of discretion.
The trial court improperly dismissed the case with prejudice upon Manese’s motion, which was filed after the answer and sought dismissal without prejudice to refiling a custody suit. Under Rule 17, dismissal at the plaintiff’s instance after an answer is served should generally be without prejudice, unless otherwise stated in the court’s order. The trial court provided no justification for imposing prejudice. Moreover, the issue of child custody could have been resolved within the habeas corpus proceeding itself under Rule 102, making the separate action technically unnecessary but not barred. The Court emphasized that res judicata, a rule of technicality, must yield to substantial justice, especially in cases involving child custody where the state has a paramount interest in the child’s welfare. The ancillary issue on the grant of Christmas custody was rendered moot.