SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243298. January 28, 2019.]
LILIA PILARES DE VERA, petitioner,vs. CORA P. MANALASTAS, CRISTINA M. VIRTUCIO, AND CARINA PILARES ALCANTARA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243298 (Lilia Pilares De Vera v. Cora P. Manalastas, Cristina M. Virtucio, and Carina Pilares Alcantara)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the June 7, 2018 Decision 2 and the November 16, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150599 for failure of petitioner Lilia Pilares De Vera (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 13's denial 4 of her motion to dismiss against respondents Cora P. Manalastas, Cristina M. Virtucio, and Carina Pilares Alcantara (respondents) counterclaim in Civil Case No. 410-M-2016.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents' counterclaim is not barred by res judicata (whether as bar by prior judgment or by conclusiveness of judgment), 5 considering that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 329-M-2013 was not only without prejudice to respondents prosecuting their claim anew, but was also not an adjudication on the merits which would have barred the refiling of such action. 6
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 33-102.
2.Id. at 11-25. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3.Id. at 27-28.
4.Id. at 221-223. Signed by Presiding Judge Efren B. Tienzo.
5. "Jurisprudence expounds that the concept of res judicata embraces two aspects. The first, known as 'bar by prior judgment,' or 'estoppel by verdict,' is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. The second, known as 'conclusiveness of judgment,' otherwise known as the rule of auter action pendent, ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. The bar by prior judgment requires the following elements to be present for it to operate: (1) A former final judgment that was rendered on the merits; (2) The court in the former judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (3) Identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action between the first and second actions. In contrast, the elements of conclusiveness of judgment are: 1. Identity of parties; and 2. Subject matter in the first and second cases." (Ley Construction & Development Corporation v. Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank, G.R. No. 160841, 635 Phil., 503, 511-512 [2010]; citations omitted.)
6. See rollo, p. 22.