G.R. No. L-47301; April 8, 1941
Pedro Adiarte, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Pastor Domingo, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On March 22, 1928, Godofredo Domingo, as the authorized representative of the defendant Pastor Domingo, filed an action (Civil Case No. 3011) in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte to recover the sum of P1,150, which represented the price of lumber, alcohol, and shellac that the defendant had obligated himself to deliver to the plaintiff Pedro Adiarte. In that prior case, the plaintiff interposed the defense of nondelivery of the goods. Judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, affirmed by the Supreme Court, and his real property was sold at public auction after execution. One year later, on October 17, 1936, the plaintiff instituted the present action against the defendant to compel the delivery of the same lumber, alcohol, and shellac that were the subject matter of his defense in the prior litigation. The defendant demurred on the ground of res adjudicata, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the order but modified it to give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. Pursuant to this, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 3, 1939. However, the amended complaint pleaded no new facts to constitute a proper cause of action. The defendant interposed a second demurrer on the same ground of res adjudicata, which the trial court sustained, dismissing the amended complaint. The plaintiff appealed again.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer and dismissed the amended complaint on the ground of res adjudicata.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court. In its prior judgment affirming the order sustaining the demurrer to the original complaint, the Court had expressly declared the existence of res adjudicata. Since the amended complaint introduced no new facts to constitute a proper cause of action, the declaration of res adjudicata with respect to the original complaint necessarily controlled the amended complaint. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the records in Civil Case No. 3011. It reiterated its prior ruling that, in the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience, a court may properly treat all or part of the original record of a former case filed in its archives as read into the record of a pending case when reference is made to it by name and number or in some other sufficient manner, with the knowledge of the opposing party. Costs were awarded against the appellant.