G.R. No. L-17836; August 30, 1962
MATEO CANITE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MADRIGAL & CO., INC., ET AL., defendants-appellees

FACTS

Plaintiffs Mateo Canite and others filed a complaint to recover unpaid salaries and allowances from March 17 to September 30, 1948, as crew members hired by defendants to fetch the S.S. BRIDGE from Japan. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of res judicata and prescription. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case, prompting this appeal.
The dismissal was based on a prior final judgment. The same plaintiffs, along with other crew members, had previously filed an identical complaint (Civil Case No. 29663) against the same defendants to recover the same unpaid salaries for the same period, based on the same shipping contract. In that prior case, the trial court rendered a decision ordering payment only to one plaintiff, Miguel Olimpo, and explicitly dismissed the complaint with regard to the other plaintiffs, including the present appellants, “for insufficiency of evidence.” The appellants’ attempt to appeal that dismissal was denied for being out of time, rendering the judgment final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the present complaint on the ground of res judicata.

RULING

Yes, the trial court correctly dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata. All essential requisites for res judicata, as established in Lapid v. Lawan, are present: (1) a final judgment; (2) rendered by a court with jurisdiction; (3) on the merits; and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the prior and present cases.
The prior judgment was final and executory. The court that rendered it had jurisdiction. Contrary to appellants’ contention, the dismissal of their claims in the prior case was a judgment on the merits. The decision dismissed their claims “for insufficiency of evidence,” and under Section 4, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court, a dismissal not provided for in the rule (and not for lack of jurisdiction) operates as an adjudication on the merits. There was no reservation in the dismissal order to exempt it from this rule. Finally, there is clear identity of parties (same plaintiffs and defendants), subject matter (unpaid salaries for the same period), and cause of action (breach of the same shipping contract).
The appellants’ argument that res judicata cannot be invoked because it was not alleged in the complaint is without merit. A motion to dismiss, unlike a demurrer under the old procedure, can be based on facts not alleged in the complaint, except when the ground is failure to state a cause of action. The trial court, therefore, properly considered the existence of the prior final judgment. The action is also barred by prescription, as over ten years had elapsed from the accrual of the cause of action in 1948. The appealed order is affirmed.