Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Revadillo
Submitted to: Judge Roland Moreno
Tables of Content
1 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures
Mallion vs Alcantara
Res judicata as a bar by prior judgment requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1)
the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is-between
the first and second action-identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.
Facts:
On October 24, 1995, petitioner Oscar P. Mallion filed a petition with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 29, of San Pablo City seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage to
respondent Editha Alcantara, citing respondents alleged psychological incapacity. The petition
was denied by the RTC due to failure to adduce preponderant evidence to warrant the grant of
the relief. It was appealed before the Court of Appeals and was subsequently denied due to
failure to pay docket fees.
After the decision attained finality, petitioner filed on 12 July, 1999 another petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage with the RTC of San Pablo City, this time alleging that his
marriage with the respondent was null and void due to the fact that it was celebrated without a
valid marriage license. Respondent filed an answer with a motion to dismiss on the ground of res
judicata and forum shopping.
Issue:
Whether the second case filed by the petitioner is barred by the decision reached in the
first case.
Ruling:
Yes, under the doctrine of res judicata.
Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a
thing or matter settled by judgment. It also refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on
the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit.
This doctrine is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and
is founded upon the following precepts of common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity,
which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation, and (2) the
hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause. A contrary doctrine
would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the
gratification of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public
tranquility and happiness.
2 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures
3 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures
Chaves vs Sandiganbayan
Counterclaims. The claim for damages against the Solicitor General arising from the filing of
the alleged harassment suit does not constitute a compulsory counterclaim, it must be the subject
of a separate and distinct action for damages. (Permissive counterclaim)
Facts:
On July 31, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission
on Good Government (PCGG) with the assistance of Solicitor General Francisco Chavez filed
with the respondent Sandiganbayan a complaint docketed as Civil Case No.0033 against
Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and Juan Ponce Enrile, among others, for reconveyance, reversion and
accounting, restitution and damages.
After the denial of his motion to dismiss, respondent Enrile filed his answer with
compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim with damages. The compulsory counterclaim is against
the petitioner Chaves on the ground of harassment by filing baseless cases against Enrile.
Issue:
Whether Petitioner Chaves, by representing PCGG, is immune to suit and thus the
counterclaim should be dismissed.
Ruling:
Petitioner is not immune to suits. The general rule is that public officials can be held
personally accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties
where they have acted ultra vires or where there is a showing of bad faith.
Under the circumstances of this case, we rule that the charges pressed by respondent
Enrile for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code arising from the filing of an alleged
harassment suit with malice and evident bad faith do not constitute a compulsory counterclaim.
To vindicate his rights, Senator Enrile has to file a separate and distinct civil action for damages
against the Solicitor General.
In the case of Tiu Po v. Bautista, (103 SCRA 388 [1981]), we ruled that damages claimed
to have been suffered as a consequence of an action filed against the petitioner must be pleaded
in the same action as a compulsory counterclaim. We were referring, however, to a case filed by
the private respondent against the petitioners or parties in the litigation. In the present case, the
counterclaim was filed against the lawyer, not against the party plaintiff itself.
4 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures
5 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures
6 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures
7 | Page
Clarence Gabriel D. Revadillo 2AA Civil Procedures
The request for admission is a remedy afforded to any party after the issues had been
joined. Despabiladeras having failed to deny under oath the facts on the request, she was
deemed to have admitted the same. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 26 of the 1964 Rules of Court
should not be disregarded just because the parties mutually agreed that petitioner submit an
offer to stipulate.
Facts:
Respondent obtained on credit from petitioner various construction materials which she
used in her construction project at the Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges. Petitioner claims that
he delivered a total of P307,140.50 worth of construction materials payable upon respondents
initial collection from CSPC, to bear 8% monthly interest until fully paid. Since respondent has
only paid P130K exclusive of interest, despite receipt of payments from CSPC, petitioner filed a
complaint against her for sum of money with damages.
In her Answer with Counterclaim, respondent alleged that petitioner had substantially
altered the prices of the construction materials delivered, and that she had made additional
payments via 2 checks (P43,069 and P14K). Petitioner alleged, in his Reply and Answer to
Counterclaim, that the 2 checks represented for past obligations not subject of the case.
Issues having been joined, the case was set for pre-trial. During pre-trial, it was mutually
agreed that the plaintiff shall submit an offer to stipulate showing an itemized list of construction
materials delivered and the cost claimed by the plaintiff, and that defendant shall state her
objections, if any.
Instead of submitting an offer to stipulate, petitioner filed a Request for Admission asking
respondent to admit within 15 days that she received the various items delivered by petitioner,
and she has paid only P130K. Respondent did not respond within the said period.
RTC ordered that since the defendant has not answered under oath the request for
admission, the facts requested to be admitted are hereby confirmed.
RTC ruled in favor of petitioner. CA set aside RTC Decision and dismissed petitioners
complaint.
Issue:
What is the legal consequence when a request for admission of material and relevant facts
pursuant to Rule 26 is not answered under oath within the period stated in the Rules by a party
litigant served therefore?
Ruling:
Respondent having failed to discharge what is incumbent upon her under Rule 26, which
is to deny under oath the facts contained in the request, she was deemed to have admitted that
she received the construction materials, the cost indicated therein and debt of P184,610.50. (
However, petitioner admitted during trial that he had received an additional P122,000;
thus, respondent had a remaining balance of P62,610.50.)
The agreement of the parties during the pre-trial was that petitioner shall submit an offer
to stipulate showing an itemized list of construction materials delivered to respondent and the
cost claimed by petitioner, and that respondent will state her objections, if any. In substantial
compliance, petitioner chose to instead file a request for admission, a remedy afforded by a party
under Rule 26.
8 | Page