Today is Monday, October 29, 2018

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

HILIPPINES,respondents.

DECISION

ismissed petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. 00-540 on the ground of res judicata and splitting of a cause of action, and by Order

rom the records is in order.

nt Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP) entered into a loan agreement under which PDCP extended to DATICOR a foreign currency

cent (1%) per annum (later increased to six percent [6%] per annum) on the outstanding balance of the peso loan; (2) 12 percent (12%

Otis property) which was registered in the name of petitioner Ernesto C. Del Rosario, and five in Mati, Davao Oriental – and chattel mo

y charges. This left petitioners, by PDCP's computation, with an outstanding balance on the principal of more than P10 million as of M

e (CFI) of Manila for violation of the Usury Law, annulment of contract and damages. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 82-8088,

d declared void and of no effect the stipulation of interest in the loan agreement between DATICOR and PDCP.

ondent Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) under a Deed of Assignment dated April 10, 19875 for a consideration of P5,435

OA) dated December 8, 1988 whereby petitioners agreed to, as they did pay FEBTC7 the amount of P6.4 million as full settlement of
sion of the IAC. It determined that after deducting the P3 million earlier paid by petitioners to PDCP, their remaining balance on the p

the RTC of Makati, mainly to recover the excess payment which they computed to be P5.3 million10 – P4.335 million from PDCP, and

ng PDCP to pay petitioners the sum of P4.035 million,12 to bear interest at 12% per annum from April 25, 1994 until fully paid; to exec
he costs of the suit.

e of action, ratiocinating that the MOA between petitioners and FEBTC was not subject to this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 73198, FE

The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 50591.

anding obligation, which this Court had determined in G.R. No. 73198 to be P1.4 million, could not be increased or decreased by any

ame amount payable to assignee FEBTC, irrespective of any stipulation that PDCP and FEBTC might have provided in the Deed of A

held that the party bound to refund the excess payment of P5 million16 was FEBTC as it received the overpayment; and that FEBTC c

CA held that it could not grant a relief different from or in excess of that prayed for.

sis, DATICOR's obligation having already been paid in full, overpaid in fact, when it paid assignee FEBTC the amount of P6.4 million.

over the Mati real properties and the machinery and equipment, and to return the corresponding certificates of title to petitioners. And

o this Court.

balance of the excess payment of P4.335 million.18 The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-540, the precursor of the present c

A Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591 was it held liable to return the whole amount of P5.435 million representing the consideration fo
from it, they were barred from claiming it.

5,000 and the interests adjudged by the CA in favor of petitioners, as well as the P4.335 million and interests that petitioners were cla

overy of the amount of P965,000, the same cannot be recovered via the third party complaint.

that DATICOR has no cause of action against it for the refund of any part of the excess payment, FEBTC can no longer re-litigate th

m the effect of the Supreme Court decision, and that the amount of P6.4 million paid by petitioners to FEBTC was clearly intended as

over the receivables from petitioners. It added that the third party claim being founded on a valid and justified cause, PDCP's counter
 und of res judicata and splitting of cause of action. It recalled that petitioners had filed Civil Case No. 94-1610 to recover the alleged
, ordered PDCP to release and cancel the mortgages and FEBTC to pay P965,000 with interest, which Decision became final and ex
er the doctrine of res judicata.

ding litigation before the Supreme Court of the Philippines with respect to the Loan exclusive of the Receivablesassigned to FEBTC s
with the parties' full knowledge and consent that petitioners agreed to pay P6.4 million to FEBTC as consideration for the settlement.

1,224,906.67 (P965,000 plus interest) to petitioners was in compliance with the final judgment of the CA, hence, it could not entertain

er of September 24, 2001.

ible on the ground of res judicata and splitting of cause of action, the issues of 1) whether FEBTC can be held liable for the balance o
signment and the MOA that the assignment of the receivables shall not be affected by this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 73198, be con

Civil Case No. 00-540 upon the grounds stated by the trial court. This should be so because a Rule 45 petition, like the one at bar, can

dered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:

ged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in in

ly is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or wh

ata known as "bar by prior judgment" or "estoppel by judgment," which states that the judgment or decree of a court of competent juri

ar to the subsequent action since that judgment is conclusive not only as to the matters offered and received to sustain it but also as t
d for a motion to dismiss in civil cases.31

s rule provides that any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action befo
he claim or demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two suits is the same.32 It refers to a situation where the judgment in the prior ac
 and causes of action.34

.R. CV No. 50591) was a final judgment. Not only did it dispose of the case on the merits; it also became executory as a consequenc

mined the rights and liabilities of the parties.36 To recall, it was ruled that: (1) DATICOR overpaid by P5.3 million; (2) FEBTC was boun
COR because its obligation had already been paid in full.

e first case, Civil Case No. 94-1610, was brought by petitioners to recover an alleged overpayment of P5.3 million –P965,000 from FE

million which is admittedly part of the P5.3 million earlier sought to be recovered in Civil Case No. 94-1610. This time, the action was b

, the test is to ascertain whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second action would suffice to authorize a reco
the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action.

e defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff.39

d refusing to return an amount in excess of what was due it in violation of their right to a refund. The same facts and evidence presen

e Deed, the MOA between petitioners and FEBTC, and this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 73198 were submitted in Civil Case No. 00-

against, the recovery of the P4.335 million. Petitioners, of course, plead the CA Decision as basis for their subsequent claim for the r
s herein petitioners are doing, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated

as well as private interest demands the ending of suits by requiring the parties to sue once and for all in the same case all the specia

issue that was finally settled as between petitioners and FEBTC in the prior case is to allow the splitting of a cause of action, a groun

on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for

s and instituting two or more actions based on it.42 Because the plaintiff cannot divide the grounds for recovery, he is mandated to se
or injury.43

ng the above-quoted Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.

action are based on the salutary public policy against unnecessary multiplicity of suits – interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.44Re-litig
er cases.45

g petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. 00-540 is AFFIRMED.

e records of the case show that the complaint was raffled to, and heard before Branch 143 presided by Judge Salvador S. Abad Sant

ember 1, 1988, respectively (cited in the 5th and 6th Whereas Clauses of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between petitioners a

executed by the parties.

ptember 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 282.

million as they claimed that the Supreme Court made an error in computation; and since they had paid a total of P6.4 million, they wer

gnment of the receivables exceeded the unpaid balance of P1.4 million.

Emeterio C. Cui (then, chairman of the CA Second Division) and Ramon U. Mabutas, Jr.

ly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.

ad never been due or had already been paid was delivered; but he from whom the return is claimed may prove that the delivery was m

er the MOA and the outstanding obligation of P1.4 million.

e Manifestation and Motion filed by petitioners on January 5, 2001; Order dated February 28, 2001. Records, p.173.

dated July 14, 2000; id. at 101.

ari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts w
s supplied)

Equitable Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143556, March 16, 2004, 425 SCRA 544, 553; De
Cruzo v. Carriaga, Jr., G.R. Nos. 75109-10, June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 330, 338-339.

675, 687; Dapar v. Biascan, G.R. No. 141880, September 27, 2004, 439 SCRA 179, 196; Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Ba

e Cruzo v. Carriaga, Jr., supra, p. 338.

ls, 369 Phil. 858, 866 (1999); Ybañez v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 643, 655 (1996); Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, G

rez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157616, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 89, 106-107; Sps. Romero v. Tan, 468 Phil. 224, 239 (2004); Sta

94, 229 SCRA 252, 259-260.

34 at 108.

Sec. 2.

peras v. Court of Appeals, 395 Phil. 803, 811 (2000); Ybañez v. Court of Appeals, supra note 31 at 654; Allied Banking Corp. v. Cour

92, citing Vda. De Cruzo v. Carriaga, Jr., supra note 29 at 341-342.

ote 36 at 738; Aguila, et al. v. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., et al., 130 Phil. 715, 720 (1968).
 Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive
vasaasasssasas