G.R. No. L-11263; January 30, 1959
OSMUNDO C. RAMOS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. R. C. DEANE, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Osmundo C. Ramos, a licensed real estate broker, filed a complaint to recover a broker’s commission. He alleged that defendant-appellee R.C. Deane, as attorney-in-fact for the heirs of Ludwig Weinzheimer, authorized him to sell two parcels of land. The judicial administrator of the estate, Robert O. Ferguson, allegedly confirmed this agreement, fixed the selling price at P75,000, and agreed to a 5% commission. Ramos negotiated a sale to Alberto Guevarra y Sanchez for P65,000. After the sale, the appellees refused to pay his commission of P3,250.
Previously, Ramos had filed an action (Civil Case No. 8898) against Deane and Ferguson to collect the commission. He also filed a claim in the testate estate proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 70808). The probate court dismissed his claim on February 22, 1950, ruling it was not a money claim against the estate. Subsequently, on May 26, 1950, the Court of First Instance dismissed Civil Case No. 8898 due to the pendency of the same claim in the probate court. Ramos appealed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8898 to the Court of Appeals, but this appeal was dismissed for his failure to deposit the estimated cost of printing the record on appeal within the reglementary period.
Ramos then filed the present complaint (Civil Case No. 16051), seeking to set aside the order dismissing his prior complaint and to recover his commission. The appellees moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by a prior judgment. The trial court dismissed Ramos’s complaint on the ground that it was indeed barred by a prior judgment. Ramos appealed, and the case was certified to the Supreme Court as it involved only a question of law.

ISSUE

Whether the present action filed by the appellant is barred by the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 8898, the dismissal of which became final after the appellant’s appeal was dismissed for failure to perfect it.

RULING

Yes, the present action is barred by a prior judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.
The Court held that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 8898, and its order of dismissal was a valid exercise of that jurisdiction. The dismissal, though potentially erroneous for being based on the pendency of a claim already dismissed by the probate court, was regular on its face and not procured by fraud. The proper remedy for such an error was a direct attack via appeal, not a collateral attack through a new action to set it aside.
Since Ramos’s appeal from the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8898 was itself dismissed for failure to comply with procedural requirements, the dismissal of the original case stood as if no appeal had been taken. Under the then Rule 30, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, a dismissal not provided for in the rules (and not for lack of jurisdiction) operates as an adjudication upon the merits. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 8898 was not for lack of jurisdiction but on a different ground; therefore, it constituted an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the appellant’s second complaint seeking the same relief is barred by the prior final judgment.