Paula Vda. de Denoso v. The Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners initiated an action on June 25, 1965, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 8786) seeking the recovery of their former homestead land from the private respondents. Following pre-trial proceedings and a stipulation of facts, the trial court rendered a decision on December 28, 1968, dismissing the petitioners' complaint with costs. 2. Procedural History: Petitioners received the trial court's decision on February 6, 1969, and subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration and/or to re-open the trial on February 25, 1969, which was denied on April 19, 1969. Their notice of appeal was filed on May 27, 1969, with the appeal bond and record on appeal filed on May 31, 1969. A writ of execution for costs was issued on July 30, 1969, leading to a levy of P10.00 against the petitioners. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-30929), which was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 43963-R) and subsequently dismissed on October 3, 1969, for failure to submit certified copies of pertinent pleadings and orders. A motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was denied on October 29, 1969. Petitioners then filed another petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 44470) on January 2, 1970, which was dismissed on February 6, 1970, on the grounds of being a second motion for reconsideration and being barred by res judicata. This dismissal was affirmed upon reconsideration on March 11, 1970. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on June 26, 1970, seeking to overturn the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their petition in CA-G.R. No. 44470. They argue that the dismissal by the Court of Appeals was erroneous because it was based on res judicata and the finality of a prior resolution, contending that the initial dismissal in CA-G.R. No. 43963-R was due to a technicality and not a judgment on the merits. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition to be without merit, holding that the dismissal by the Court of Appeals was an adjudication on the merits and that the matter was barred by res judicata, emphasizing the principle that there should be an end to litigation.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the petition in CA-G.R. No. 43963-R for failure to comply with procedural rules constitutes an adjudication on the merits, thereby barring a subsequent petition on the same grounds due to res judicata. Whether the resolution of October 3, 1969, in CA-G.R. No. 43963-R had become final and executory on November 13, 1969. Whether the second petition filed with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 44470) was a prohibited second motion for reconsideration or an original petition. Whether the present petition is barred by res judicata. Whether the petition has become moot and academic due to the partial satisfaction of the judgment.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The action of petitioners is barred by res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of res judicata and dismissal for failure to comply with rules: The Court held that Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute or to comply with the rules or any order of the court shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by the court. In this case, the dismissal of the petition in CA-G.R. No. 43963-R was due to the failure of petitioners to attach the required documents, which is a failure to comply with the rules. The resolution of dismissal did not contain any qualification that it was without prejudice to petitioners prosecuting the case anew. Therefore, the dismissal is considered an adjudication on the merits, and res judicata can set in. On the finality of the resolution: The Court affirmed the appellate court's finding that the resolution of October 3, 1969, in CA-G.R. No. 43963-R became final and executory on November 13, 1969. Although no entry of judgment had been made, the Court can no longer entertain a second motion for reconsideration after the resolution had become final. The subsequent petition filed on January 2, 1970, was filed fifty (50) days after the resolution sought to be reconsidered had become final and executory, making it out of time as a second motion for reconsideration. On the nature of the second petition: The appellate court correctly treated the second petition (CA-G.R. No. 44470) as a second motion for reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. No. 43963-R. Even if treated as an original petition, the Court held that it is barred by res judicata. On the bar of res judicata: The Court reiterated that the present petition involves the review of a decision of the lower court dismissing the complaint on the merits. When the petition was filed with the appellate court and subsequently dismissed, it effectively resulted in the affirmation of the judgment of the lower court. Allowing the same issue to be elevated to the Supreme Court for the second time for the same purpose would violate the principle of preventing multiplicity of suits and the need for an end to litigation. On the petition becoming moot and academic: The Court agreed with the private respondents that the petition had become moot and academic. The petitioners had partially satisfied the decision from which they were attempting to appeal by paying P10.00 of the total cost of P35.00, which was enforced by a writ of execution. A party who voluntarily executes a judgment, either partially or in toto, is generally not permitted to appeal from it.
Main Doctrine
A dismissal for failure to comply with procedural rules, unless otherwise provided by the court, is considered an adjudication on the merits and may give rise to res judicata. Furthermore, a party who voluntarily executes a judgment, even partially, is generally not permitted to appeal from it.