b. Res Judicata

Was the petition for certiorari the correct remedy?

A: No. a dismissal on the ground of res judicata is expressly declared to be appealable under Rule 16, Section 1 in relation to Section 5, which states that, “subject to the right of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim.” Evidently therefore, appeal — and not a special civil action for certiorari — was the correct remedy to challenge the dismissal of the second petition on the ground of res judicata. As appeal was available, X Corporation’s Rule 65 petition would not prosper even if the ground therefor was grave abuse of discretion. (Philippine Bank of Communications v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 222958, March 11, 2020.)

What should be resolved in a motion to dismiss based on a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief based on the facts and the law. The “facts” referred to here include judicial admissions, matters of judicial notice, stipulations made during the pre-trial and trial, admissions, and presumptions, the only exclusion being the defendant’s evidence. (GMA Network v. Central CATV, G.R. No. 176694, 2014)

Q: Petitioners X and Y were accused of human trafficking. During trial, the prosecution presented several testimonies, including one from one of the victims. After the prosecution had rested its case, the defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which the RTC granted. The RTC explained that the testimonies were supposedly inconsistent and that there were supposedly irregularities in the way the entrapment operation, where Petitioners X and Y were caught, was conducted. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA reversed the acquittal of Petitioners X and Y. Was the CA wrong to reverse the acquittal of Petitioners X and Y?

A: Yes. Although the CA was correct in ruling that the RTC erred in granting the Demurrer, the Court held that the Demurrer could not be reversed without offending the petitioners’ constitutional right against double jeopardy. Jurisprudence has provided that for the right against double jeopardy to attach, the following requisites must be present: 1) a valid indictment, 2) a court of competent jurisdiction, 3) the arraignment of the accused, 4) a valid plea entered by him, and 5) the acquittal or conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination of the case against him without his express consent. This is also enshrined the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, which provides that a judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation. This means that not every error in the trial or evaluation of the evidence by the court in question that led to the acquittal of the accused would be reviewable by certiorari. The only exception to this doctrine would be if the prosecution was denied due process. In this case, the exception is not present, thus the finality-of-acquittal rule applies, regardless of whether the Court, or any appellate court, believes that the accused should have been convicted. (Raya v. People, G.R. No. 237798, May 5, 2021).

Q: X bought a lot with a one-storey residential house erected thereon from Y. Y owns an adjoining lot to X’s lot. Y started construction on a two-storey residential house. X files a complaint for easement of light and view, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction. Y filed a motion to dismiss by way of demurrer of evidence. RTC denied the demurrer of evidence. Y filed for certiorari with the CA. CA denied the petition for certiorari for failing to prove that RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion. X contends that CA’s decision denying the demurrer of evidence constitutes as the law of the case in the complaint for easements. Does a decision denying a demurrer of evidence constitute as the law of the case in a complaint for easements?

A: No. The doctrine of the law of the case only applies when there has been a prior decision on the merits. Law of the case is a rule of general application that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law to the case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the trial and appellate courts and no question necessarily involved and decided on that appeal will be considered on a second appeal or writ of error in the same case, provided the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first question rested and, according to some authorities, provided the decision is on the merits. (Spouses Garcia v. Santos, G.R. No. 228334, June 17, 2019)

Remedy of defendant where a single cause of action has been split

If two or more suits are instituted for a single cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any of one is available as a ground for dismissal of others.

The remedy then of the defendant is to raise the affirmative defense of either:

• Litis Pendentia; or
• Res Judicata

If the first action is pending when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on LITIS PENDENTIA.

If a final judgment had been rendered in the first action when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on RES JUDICATA.

Note that it need not be the second action filed that should be dismissed.

CCA holdings filed a complaint against Riviera Golf Club Inc. when the latter defaulted in payment.

When its demands were unheeded, CCA Holdings filed another complaint against Riviera Golf Club Inc. The Court did not allow this. A cause of action may give rise to several reliefs, but only one action can be filed. A single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided into two or more different actions. In both cases, CCA Holdings imputed the same wrongful act. (Riviera Golf Club Inc. v. CCA Holdings, G.R. No. 173783, 2015).

Res Judicata in Partition Cases

There can still be res judicata in partition cases concerning the same parties and the same subject matter once the respective shares of the co-owners have been determined with finality by a competent court with jurisdiction or if the court determines that partition is improper for co-ownership does not or no longer exists. (Quintos vs. Nicolas, G.R. No. 210252, 2014)