GR 97179; (February, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97179 February 3, 1993
VILLA ESPERANZA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ROBERTA RONGAVILLA, etc., and MARGARITA STA. TERESA, respondents.
FACTS
On December 19, 1984, plaintiffs Renato P. Dragon and Villa Esperanza Development Corporation filed a complaint for specific performance and damages (Civil Case No. 9337), which was dismissed without prejudice. Subsequently, the same plaintiffs filed another complaint of the same nature (Civil Case No. 12557), which was dismissed for failure to prosecute, and the order of dismissal became final and executory on October 30, 1987. On February 16, 1988, a third complaint for specific performance and damages was filed by Villa Esperanza Development Corporation alone, docketed as Civil Case No. 88-191, as Renato P. Dragon allegedly divested himself of any interest in the corporation. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, invoking a liberal application of the rule on res judicata to promote the ends of justice, which was denied. Petitioner now faults the respondent Court for not applying the rulings in Republic v. De los Angeles, Ronquillo v. Marasigan, and Santiago v. Ramirez, where the Supreme Court ruled that res judicata is to be disregarded if its application would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality.
ISSUE
Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to bar the third complaint (Civil Case No. 88-191) filed by Villa Esperanza Development Corporation.
RULING
Yes, the doctrine of res judicata applies. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the cases cited by the petitioner (Republic v. De los Angeles, Ronquillo v. Marasigan, and Santiago v. Ramirez) had peculiar and legitimate reasons to be excepted from the operation of res judicata, which are not present in this case. The only reason advanced by the petitioner was that a dismissal of its case would be a sacrifice of justice to technicality, but the previous cases were dismissed for lack of interest or failure to prosecute, manifestations of petitioner’s lackadaisical attitude. The Court held that notwithstanding the non-inclusion of Renato Dragon in the third case, there is substantial identity of parties between this case and Civil Case No. 12557, as petitioner and Renato Dragon, as plaintiffs in the prior case, were seeking the same relief, making them privy-in-law. The operation of a final judgment is not altered by the fact that somebody who was a party in the first action is not impleaded in the second case. With the finding that res judicata has set in, there was no need to delve into other issues. The petition was denied for lack of merit.