CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ v. CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA G.R. No. 179556 (February 13, 2009) (CASE DIGEST)

Facts

Petitioner Concordia Medel Gomez initially filed a Complaint for specific performance and damages (Civil Case No. 97-84159) against Respondent Corazon Medel Alcantara over the ownership of Lot No. 2259-A in Manila. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 50, dismissed Civil Case No. 97-84159 motu proprio for the petitioner’s failure to prosecute, specifically citing the failure of the plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing to continue presenting evidence. The Order of dismissal dated May 31, 2000, did not contain any qualification that the dismissal was “without prejudice”. The petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied, and the dismissal order attained finality because the petitioner failed to appeal it to the higher courts. Less than four years later, the petitioner filed a second Complaint (Civil Case No. 04-111160) against the respondent, seeking recovery of inheritance/ownership over the same property (Lot No. 2259-A), which the respondent moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the second case, sustaining the defense of res judicata. The petitioner brought the case before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the principle of res judicata applied to bar the second case (Civil Case No. 04-111160), considering the dismissal of the first case (Civil Case No. 97-84159) was based merely on technicality (failure to prosecute) and not after a trial on the merits.
2. Whether Petitioner was deprived of her day in court when she was prevented from presenting her case due to the gross negligence of her former counsel.

Ruling

The instant Petition is denied for lack of merit and the Decision dated 31 May 2007 and Resolution dated 28 August 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96790 are affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

Controlling Doctrine: Res Judicata.

Legal Principles Established/Reinforced:

1. Effect of Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute (Adjudication on the Merits): Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, a dismissal of a complaint due to the plaintiff’s fault (such as failing to appear or prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time) shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. Since the RTC’s order dismissing Civil Case No. 97-84159 contained no qualification, it is deemed an adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice to the filing of another action.
2. Requisites for Res Judicata: The principle applies when four requisites are present, all of which were found in this case: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court rendering said judgment or order must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) said judgment or order must be on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
3. Finality of Unappealed Dismissal: Once an order dismissing a case for failure to prosecute attains finality (i.e., by failure to appeal), the Supreme Court can no longer delve into its legality or validity, and the petitioner may not abuse court processes by re-filing the same case to circumvent the conclusive effects of the dismissal.
4. Due Process and Counsel Negligence: The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard and submit evidence. A party is not deemed denied due process merely because their counsel’s negligence or mistake prevented them from fully exhausting all remedies or succeeding in presenting their case.

Sample Q&A

Question: A plaintiff filed a complaint for recovery of property but failed to appear on the scheduled date for the presentation of her evidence in chief. The trial court, acting motu proprio, dismissed the case, and the Order was silent as to whether the dismissal was “with” or “without prejudice.” The plaintiff failed to appeal this Order, and it became final. If the plaintiff subsequently files a second complaint involving the exact same parties and property, is the second case barred, and what is the legal basis for the preclusion?

Answer: Yes, the second case is barred by res judicata.

The legal basis for preclusion lies in Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. This provision states that if a plaintiff fails to appear on the date of evidence presentation or fails to prosecute her action, the complaint may be dismissed. Crucially, this dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. Since the original order of dismissal was final and did not contain a qualification that it was “without prejudice,” it is deemed an adjudication on the merits. Because all four requisites of res judicata are present—the first judgment is final, rendered by a court with jurisdiction, is “on the merits” by operation of Rule 17, Section 3, and involves identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action—the subsequent complaint must be dismissed. Allowing the second case would effectively circumvent the final order dismissing the first case with prejudice.

---

#GomezVsAlcantara #GR179556 #ResJudicata #FailureToProsecute #AdjudicationOnTheMerits #Rule17 #CivilProcedure #RemedialLaw #DismissalWithPrejudice #NegligenceOfCounsel #BarByPriorJudgment #SupremeCourtPHPhilippineLaw #LawStudentPH #BarReviewPH #CivilProcedurePH #LegalEducationPH #FutureLawyerPH #PhilippineBarExams #LawSchoolPhilippines #RemRev #LitigationPH #PinoyLawyerLegalUpdates #CaseDigest #LawyerLife #StudyGram #KnowledgeIsPower #LegalNews #DailyGrind #SmartReading #LawyersOfFacebook #ProfessionalDevelopment #ReviewerMode