THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228532. February 15, 2017.]
SPOUSES BENJAMIN H. LAVA and MA. GEMMA J. LAVA, petitioners,vs. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, DANIELYN P. CASAUL, IMELDA U. SANTOS, AND LEONCIO M. ESTACION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 15, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228532 (Spouses Benjamin H. Lava and Ma. Gemma J. Lava vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, Danielyn P. Casaul, Imelda U. Santos, and Leoncio M. Estacion). — For resolution is the Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision 1 dated August 31, 2016 and Resolution 2 dated November 24, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 102392. The challenged rulings affirmed the trial court's dismissal of petitioners' complaint on the ground of res judicata.
Anent the issue raised by petitioners on whether or not the prosecution of Civil Case No. 13-953 is barred by res judicata, the Court affirms the ruling of the CA that, indeed, the said case is barred by the final judgment in the first Civil Case No. 10-807 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 148 (RTC) involving the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same cause of action, which is specific performance.
It bears stressing that Civil Case No. 10-807 was dismissed on April 26, 2013 by the RTC for petitioners' failure to attend the mandatory pre-trial conference. While the April 26, 2013 RTC Decision in the said civil case did not qualify whether or not the dismissal is with or without prejudice, the consequence of non-appearance in the pre-trial, by default, is a dismissal with prejudice. This is elucidated in Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently reads: CAIHTE
Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. — The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof. (emphasis added)
The general rule is applicable herein since the April 26, 2013 Order 3 did not specify that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 10-807 was without prejudice. Moreover, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, 4 such dismissal amounted to an adjudication on the merits. Petitioners are then precluded from re-litigating the same issues raised therein against the same parties.
As aptly noted by the CA, Civil Case No. 13-953 is a mere rehash of Civil Case No. 10-807. Neither the appellate court nor the trial court then erred in holding that the prosecution of the second complaint is already barred by res judicata.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed August 31, 2016 Decision and November 24, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 102392, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution. (Jardeleza, J., no part, as his former employer has equity in UCPB;Leonen, J., designated as additional Member per Raffle dated February 13, 2017;Caguioa, J., designated as Fifth Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2417 dated January 4, 2017)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-40. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar Dimaampao, Franchito N. Diamante.
2.Id. at 21-23.
3.Id. at 71.
4. Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.