SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225440. September 14, 2016.]
SMITH SOUNDS SYSTEMS LABORATORIES, INC., petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF ROBERT S. SMITH: JULIA PAULA, RICHARD SIMON, JOHN, SANDRA JEAN, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225440 — Smith Sounds Systems Laboratories, Inc. v. Heirs of Robert S. Smith: Julia Paula, Richard Simon, John, Sandra Jean, et al.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for: (1) failure to show that the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 139303, committed any reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing the April 15, 2004 Judgment by Compromise rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Pasig City (RTC), in Civil Case No. 67963; and, (2) lack of a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed Resolution dated June 20, 2016 in accordance with Sections 4 (d) 1 and 5 2 of Rule 45, in relation to Section 5 (d), 3 Rule 56, of the Rules of Court.
Res judicata exists when the following conditions concur: (1) there is a final judgment or order; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there is, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. 4
In the instant case, all the conditions are present. Records show that the April 20, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 124001, which dismissed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment earlier filed by petitioner to annul the April 15, 2004 Judgment by Compromise rendered by the RTC, has attained finality. As such, petitioner is barred from relitigating the same issue in the instant case. Thus, we find no error on the part of the Court of Appeals in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking to nullify the same April 15, 2004 Judgment by Compromise of the RTC on the grounds of res judicata and forum-shopping.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed December 18, 2015 Decision and June 20, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139303. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. SECTION 4. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall . . . (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; . . . .
2. SECTION 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which would accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. . . .
3. SECTION 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds: . . . (d) Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of service and contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition; . . .
4. Dela Rama vs. Judge Mendiola, 449 Phil. 754, 762 (2003).