G.R. No. L-10807; May 30, 1957
VITALIANO M. CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE CITY OF MANILA, ARSENIO H. LACSON, Mayor of the City of Manila, TELESFORO TENORIO, Chief of Police of the Manila Police Department, and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, Treasurer of the City of Manila, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Vitaliano M. Cruz, a member of the Manila Police Department, was charged with extortion in 1941 (Criminal Case No. 65940). He posted a P500 cash bail bond for his provisional liberty. The case was not tried due to World War II, and its records were destroyed. Reconstitution proceedings were dismissed in 1946. Cruz sought a refund of his bail. He filed three successive complaints in the Municipal Court of Manila to recover the amount (Civil Cases No. 22632, 24704, and 34983). The first two were dismissed. The third complaint (Civil Case No. 34983) was dismissed by Judge Estrella Abad Santos on January 19, 1955, after Cruz’s counsel failed to submit a written reply to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the court considered the motion and oral arguments. Cruz did not appeal this dismissal. Instead, on March 4, 1955, he filed a fourth identical complaint (assigned to Branch I, Judge Ramon A. Icasiano). The defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint stated no cause of action and that the action was barred by a prior judgment. Judge Icasiano dismissed the case, holding it was barred by res adjudicata. Cruz appealed to the Court of First Instance, which affirmed the dismissal. The Court of Appeals then certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved a pure question of law.

ISSUE

Whether the order of dismissal issued by Judge Estrella Abad Santos on January 19, 1955, in Civil Case No. 34983 constituted an adjudication upon the merits, thereby barring (as res adjudicata) the subsequent filing of an identical action.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the prior dismissal constituted res adjudicata. The dismissal of the third complaint (Civil Case No. 34983) was not a dismissal for failure to appear under Section 12, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court (applicable to inferior courts). Instead, it was a dismissal after due consideration of the motion to dismiss and the oral arguments, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order to file a written reply. Such a dismissal falls under Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 30 of the Rules of Court (made applicable to inferior courts by Section 19, Rule 4), which provide that a dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with rules or court orders, and any dismissal not for lack of jurisdiction, operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless otherwise ordered by the court. Since Judge Abad Santos’s order did not specify it was without prejudice, it was an adjudication on the merits and barred the subsequent action. The Court found it unnecessary to rule definitively on the alternative ground that the complaint stated no cause of action, but noted it was also well-taken because the bail bond became part of insular funds, not city funds, and was a pre-war deposit frozen by Executive Order No. 25. The appealed order was affirmed with costs against the plaintiff.