Carlet vs.

Court of Appeals et al
G.R. No. 114275, July 7, 1997

Facts:
The present case is between the heirs of Pablo Sevillo to his first wife Antonia Palisoc
and the heirs of Cirila Baylo Carosalan, daughter of Candida Baylo who is Pablos
second wife. The object in question was Lot 981 which was issued in the name of Jose
Sevillo, Pablos father. Pablo later declared Lot 981 for taxation purposes and he also
asked the same lot to be reconstituted in 1965 together with his second wife Candida. In
1980, the heirs of Cirila, the Zarates filed a case for annulment of deed of sale over Lot
981 and for partition of property among the surviving heirs of Pablo Sevillo which was
then granted by the Court of First Instance of Bian, Laguna. The Sevillos on the other
hand, thereafter filed a case to annul the aforesaid decision of the trial court but however
was dismissed in favor of the Zarates on the ground of res judicata. Later in 1991, Iigo
Carlet, special administrator of the estate of Pablo and Anotnia Sevillo filed the present
case, an action for reconveyance of property which was then dismissed through a motion
filed by the Zarates on the ground of res judicata stating that the facts alleged in the
complaint had already been decided. Carlet then appealed to the Court of Appeals but the
Court of Appeals affirmed the Order of the trial court hence the present petition for
review.

Issue:
(1) WON the present case for an action for reconveyance of property is barred by res
judicata from a previous decision arising from a civil case of annulment of deed of sale
and partition of property.

(2) WON Atty. Modesto Jimenez should be cited in contempt of court for forum
shopping,

Held:
(1) Yes, the decision in the present case of reconveyance of property is barred by res
judicata from the decision of the previous case for annulment of deed of sale and partition
of property.

The Court reiterates the principle of res judicata wherein facts or questions which
have already been admitted or judicially determined and was then settled by a judgment
after, such facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a
subsequent action. Additionally, the Court reiterated the four requisites in order to invoke
res judicata: (1) finality of the former judgment; (2) the court which rendered it had
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the
merits; and (4) there must be between the first and second actions identity of the parties,
subject matter and cause of action. The petitioner herein does not dispute the presence of
the first three elements for the application of res judicata, however what needs to be
determined is the existence of all aspects of the last element. Respondent court correctly
concluded that the identities of the herein parties were properly established, Carlet
representing the heirs of Pablo Sevillo and then the heirs of Cirilia. Next, the Court found
no dispute regarding the identity of subject matter since the instant case is about Lot No.
981 of the Bian Estate. As to the last aspect which is on the identity of causes of action,
the Court finds that inasmuch as the same evidence was needed in prosecuting the
previous civil case, both cases have identical causes of action. Hence, since all these
aspects are established, the present case indeed is barred by res judicata and could not
therefore be litigated again.
(2) With respect to the issue of forum-shopping for which the trial court ordered counsel
for petitioners, Atty. Modesto Jimenez, to explain why he should not be cited in
contempt, this applies only when the two (or more) cases are still pending.
Clearly, despite knowledge of final judgments in Civil Case No. B-1656, CA-G.R.
CV No. 07657 and SC-G.R. No. 74505, as well as in G.R. No. 94382 (the ejectment
case), counsel persisted in filing the case at bar for reconveyance. Since this case is
barred by the judgment in Civil Case No. B-1656, there was no other pending case to
speak of when it was filed in July 1991.Thus, the non-forum-shopping rule is not
violated.
What counsel for petitioners did, however, in filing this present action to relitigate
the title to and partition over Lot No. 981, violates Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for lawyers which states that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good
faith to the court. Rule 10.01 of the same Canon states that (a) lawyer shall not do any
falsehood x x x nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice. Counsels act of filing a new case involving essentially the same cause of action is
likewise abusive of the courts processes and may be viewed as improper conduct tending
to directly impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated January 11, 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED. Treble costs against petitioner.