SOCORRO ROMAN REPRESENTED BY DENNIS MATEO, PETITIONER, V. MANOTOK SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.

Socorro Roman versus Manotok Services

The Case

This is a petition for review under Rule 42 brought by Socorro Roman, represented by Dennis Mateo, against Manotok Services, Incorporated. The action below was one for ejectment over a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of a judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata — the rule that a final judgment bars a later suit — in cases governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. The question is whether a dismissal for lack of preponderance of evidence, rendered after the plaintiff failed to file a position paper, is a judgment on the merits that bars a second ejectment complaint over the same property.

Procedural History

Manotok Services first sued Socorro Roman for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 15. That complaint was dismissed in a decision dated September 2, 2005 for lack of preponderance of evidence, and no appeal was taken, so the dismissal became final.

Manotok Services then filed a second ejectment complaint, this time before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28. Instead of an answer, Socorro Roman filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The court treated the motion as her answer, since a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading under the Rules on Summary Procedure. On December 19, 2008, the Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the second complaint, holding it barred by the prior action.

Manotok Services appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28. On June 3, 2009, the Regional Trial Court granted the appeal, set aside the dismissal, ruled that res judicata did not apply because the earlier judgment was not on the merits, and remanded the records to the Metropolitan Trial Court for further proceedings. Socorro Roman's motion for reconsideration was denied on October 8, 2009. She then filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On March 23, 1998, Manotok Services leased to Socorro Roman a parcel of land at Lot 11, Block 15, Juan Luna Street, Tondo, Manila, with an area of 105 square meters. The contract of lease had a term of one year, from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998, with monthly rental of 1,208.55 pesos, due on or before the fifth day of each month without need of demand. Socorro Roman took possession of the premises.

Even after the lease expired on December 31, 1998, Socorro Roman continued in possession, and Manotok Services acquiesced without executing a new written contract, on the agreement that she would pay rent based on the amount imposed on lessees within the same area. In a letter dated June 13, 2007, Manotok Services informed her of the expiration of the lease and demanded that she vacate and pay 391,719.05 pesos as compensation for actual use, within fifteen days from receipt, and pay 3,545.50 pesos per month beginning June 1, 2007. She received the letter on June 27, 2007, but did not heed the demand.

Manotok Services then filed the second ejectment complaint. Socorro Roman resisted on the ground that the first ejectment case, involving the same property, had already been dismissed and had become final. She also claimed she had occupied the premises for more than fifty years and had not paid rent, which would make the action one for recovery of possession, cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The courts below divided on whether the earlier dismissal barred the second complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the judgment dismissing the first ejectment case, rendered after the plaintiff failed to submit its position paper, was a judgment on the merits.
• Whether or not res judicata barred the second ejectment complaint between the same parties, over the same subject matter and cause of action.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule on res judicata as stated in the Rules of Court. Rule 39, Section 47, paragraph (b) provides:

Subject to the provisions of Rule 39, Section 47, paragraph (b), a final judgment or order rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction operates as res judicata upon the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing, under the same title and in the same capacity.

This provision supplies the bar that Socorro Roman invoked, and the case turns on whether its requirement of a final judgment on the merits is satisfied.

The decision also relies on the rule governing summary procedure, under which a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading. Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provides:

The following pleadings are prohibited: (a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with the preceding section; (b) Motion for a bill of particulars; (c) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper; (d) Motion to declare the defendant in default; (e) Dilatory motions for postponement; (f) Reply; (g) Third-party complaints; and (h) Complaints for intervention.

This is why the Metropolitan Trial Court treated Socorro Roman's motion to dismiss as her answer rather than as a prohibited motion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the September 2, 2005 decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 15, was a judgment on the merits. The Court rejected the Regional Trial Court's premise that the dismissal rested solely on the plaintiff's failure to file a position paper. The Court examined the earlier decision and found that the dismissal was rendered because Manotok Services failed to prove its right to recover material possession of the premises, and that it came after due consideration of the facts and evidence presented by both parties, each having been given the opportunity to be heard. The Court adopted the standard from the Heirs of Igmedio case:

A judgment is on the merits when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings or issues presented for trial. It is not necessary that there should have been a trial, actual hearing, or arguments on the facts of the case. For as long as the parties had full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions, the judgment is on the merits. A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is right as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or final or merely technical point.

On the second issue, the Court held that all the elements of res judicata were present. The earlier judgment was final, it was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, it was a judgment on the merits, and there was identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the two ejectment cases. The earlier dismissal therefore barred the second complaint.

Doctrine

A judgment on the merits is one that determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings or issues presented for trial. It is not necessary that there be an actual trial or hearing; it is enough that the parties had full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions. A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from one rendered on a preliminary, final, or merely technical point.

For res judicata to bar a later action, four elements must concur: the judgment must be final; it must have been rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; the disposition must be a judgment on the merits; and there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions.

In an ejectment case governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure, a dismissal for lack of preponderance of evidence, rendered after both parties were given the opportunity to be heard, is a judgment on the merits. The plaintiff's failure to file a position paper does not strip the dismissal of its merits character, because the complaint alone, unaided by a position paper with affidavits and supporting documents, cannot oust the defendant from the premises.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Regional Trial Court's decision was set aside and reversed, and the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision dismissing the second ejectment complaint was reinstated. Socorro Roman prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a judgment is on the merits when it determines which party is right, and it is enough that the parties had full legal opportunity to be heard, even without an actual trial. Examiners use this case to test the third element of res judicata in summary procedure cases, especially where a complaint is dismissed after the plaintiff fails to file a position paper.