CASE DIGEST
City Government of
Tacloban v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 221554 (Resolution), [February 3,
2021]
SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V
Civil Procedure;
Doctrine of Res Judicata; Compromise Agreement; Wit of Execution
One and the same cause of action shall
not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies. Case law explained
that if there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action in
the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a "bar by prior
judgment" would apply. If, as between the two cases, only identity of
parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res judicata as
"conclusiveness of judgment" applies.
The case involves Spouses Sacramento's land in Tacloban City, subject to an eminent domain complaint by the City Government. A Compromise Agreement between the parties was initially ratified but later withdrawn by the City Council. Spouses Sacramento sought enforcement, leading to conflicting court decisions. The RTC eventually granted their motion, issuing a Writ of Execution, which is upheld by the CA. When the RTC ordered the enforcement without an alias writ, the City Government appealed again, but the CA dismissed the petition citing res judicata.
Whether or not it was proper for the CA
to dismiss the petition applying the principle of res judicata.
YES.
The CA correctly applied the principle of res judicata in dismissing the
petition for certiorari. It bears emphasis that a compromise agreement is in
the nature of both a contract and a judgment on the merits. Spouses Sacramento
and the City Government of Tacloban freely and voluntarily entered into a compromise
agreement. The terms and conditions of the agreement are likewise clear. Moreover,
the RTC approved the agreement and the Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified it. As
such, the City Government of Tacloban cannot, later, relieve itself of
liability simply because the city council changed its position. Thus, the CA
correctly applied the principle of res judicata in dismissing the petition for
certiorari.
Case law explained that if there is identity of parties,
subject matter, and causes of action in the two cases, then res judicata in its
aspect as a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. If, as between the two cases, only identity of parties
can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res judicata as
"conclusiveness of judgment" applies.
Here, as opposed to the CA's conclusion, all the requisites
of res judicata under the concept of "bar by prior judgment" and not
"conclusiveness of judgment" are present. The two cases involve
similar causes of action. The test to determine whether the causes of action
are identical, is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both
actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance
of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two
actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to
the subsequent action.
The fact that two cases involve different RTC resolutions
does not prevent the application of res judicata. Suffice it to say that a
party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of
presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the
same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or
their privies.
No comments:
Post a Comment