G.R. No. L-14815, December 12, 1919
MACARIO MARCO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. N. T. HASHIM, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On January 29, 1916, Macario Marco filed an action in the justice of the peace court of Biñang, Laguna, to recover from N. T. Hashim the sum of P311, representing a loan made to G. F. Gardiner on August 26, 1912, with Hashim signing as surety. The debt was evidenced by a receipt. The justice of the peace court ruled in favor of Marco. Hashim appealed to the Court of First Instance, which also ruled in favor of Marco, prompting Hashim to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Hashim’s defense was based on res judicata. It was established that a prior action on the same receipt had been filed by Marco against Hashim in 1914 in the same justice of the peace court, which also decided in Marco’s favor. Hashim appealed that first case to the Court of First Instance, but the case was dismissed because Marco failed to file a complaint within the two-month period required by law (Section 78, Code of Civil Procedure). After dismissal, Marco initiated the present action in the justice of the peace court.

ISSUE:
Whether the dismissal of the first case in the Court of First Instance for failure of the plaintiff to file a complaint constitutes res judicata, thereby barring the present action.

RULING:
No. The present action is not barred by res judicata.

When an appeal is taken from a judgment of a justice of the peace, the judgment is abrogated, and the case is tried de novo in the Court of First Instance as if it originated there. The dismissal of the first case in the Court of First Instancedue to Marco’s failure to file a complaintwas a dismissal without adjudication on the merits. Under Section 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the defendant appeals and the plaintiff fails to file a complaint, the court dismisses the case; this dismissal does not revive the judgment of the lower court. In contrast, if the plaintiff appeals and fails to file a complaint, the court dismisses the appeal, which does revive the lower court’s judgment. Here, since Hashim (the defendant) appealed the first case, the dismissal did not revive the justice of the peace’s judgment and left no adjudication on the merits.

Furthermore, Section 127 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that dismissal for failure to prosecute is not a bar to another action for the same cause. The same principle applies here. Therefore, the defense of res judicata is inapplicable.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance in favor of Marco, with costs against Hashim.