MATEO CANITE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. MADRIGAL & CO., INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Canite versus Madrigal and Company

The Case

This is a civil action for the recovery of money. Mateo Canite, Abdon Jamaquin, and Filomeno Sampinit sued Madrigal and Company and its co-defendants to collect the salaries and allowances they claimed were owed to them as crew members of the vessel S.S. Bridge, for the period from March 17, 1948 to September 30, 1948. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the complaint outright. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of the requisites of res judicata — the rule that a final judgment bars a later suit — and of the rule that a dismissal without reservation operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed their complaint before the Court of First Instance of Manila. Within the reglementary period, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds: first, that the cause of action was already barred by a prior judgment of the same court in an earlier case; and second, that it was barred by prescription. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. After hearing both the motion and the opposition, the trial court issued an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds stated in the motion.

The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising purely questions of law. That direct appeal is how the case reached the Court.

Facts

Before this case was filed, the same plaintiffs, together with other members of the same crew, had already sued the same defendants in the Court of First Instance of Manila. That earlier complaint sought to recover the total amount of 14,254.12 pesos in unpaid salaries as crew members of the S.S. Bridge, for the same period from March 17, 1948 to September 30, 1948. That amount included the very sums now sought again in this case, and the cause of action rested on the same shipping contract.

That earlier case was tried on the merits. The court ordered the defendants to pay one Miguel Olimpo 1,016.13 pesos in wages and 300 pesos in attorney's fees and costs, but dismissed the complaint as to the other plaintiffs, among them Mateo Canite, Abdon Jamaquin, and Filomeno Sampinit. The dispositive part of that decision stated that the case of the other plaintiffs was dismissed, as was the defendants' counterclaim, for insufficiency of evidence.

The plaintiffs whose complaint was dismissed gave notice of their intention to appeal, but the notice was denied because it was filed out of time. They then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the lower court to approve and give course to their appeal, but that petition was dismissed. The earlier decision thus became final and executory. On these undisputed facts, the trial court dismissed the present action on the ground of res judicata.

Issues

• Whether or not the present action is barred by the prior final judgment under the principle of res judicata.
• Whether or not a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata may be based on facts not alleged in the complaint.
• Whether or not the dismissal of the claims of the other plaintiffs in the earlier case was an adjudication upon the merits.
• Whether or not the plaintiffs' action is likewise barred by the statute of limitations.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 30 of the Rules of Court provides:

Unless otherwise ordered by the court, any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

This is the provision that turns the dismissal of the earlier complaint into a judgment on the merits, supplying the element that makes res judicata complete.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the action is barred by res judicata, because all the essential requisites are present. The Court adopted the formulation from its earlier decision in Lapid versus Lawan:

In order that a judgment rendered in a case may be conclusive and bar a subsequent action, the following requisites must be present: (a) it must be a final judgment; (b) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between the two cases identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of cause of action.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that res judicata cannot be raised because the complaint does not allege the prior case. A motion to dismiss under Rule 8 is not like a demurrer under the old Code of Civil Procedure, which had to rest only on the facts alleged in the complaint. Except where the ground is that the complaint states no cause of action, a motion to dismiss may be based on facts not alleged and may even deny those alleged in the complaint. The trial court therefore acted properly in sustaining the motion.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the claim that only Miguel Olimpo's claim was adjudicated on the merits while the others were dismissed merely for failure to testify. Under Section 4 of Rule 30, a dismissal not provided for in the rule, other than one for lack of jurisdiction, operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless the court orders otherwise. Nothing in the earlier decision took the case out of that general rule, so the dismissal without reservation operated as an adjudication upon the merits.

On the fourth issue, the Court noted that more than ten years had already elapsed since the cause of action accrued on September 30, 1948, which justified the contention that the action is also barred by the statute of limitations.

Doctrine

A final judgment bars a subsequent action when four requisites concur: a final judgment; a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; a judgment on the merits; and identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. A motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata may be based on facts not alleged in the complaint, because such a motion is not a demurrer. And under Section 4 of Rule 30, a dismissal without reservation, other than one for lack of jurisdiction, operates as an adjudication upon the merits — so a plaintiff who sleeps on his appeal cannot relitigate the same claim.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal appealed from, without pronouncement as to costs. The defendants prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the four requisites of res judicata and the rule that a dismissal without reservation is a dismissal on the merits. Examiners use this case to test whether a prior dismissal for insufficiency of evidence, unappealed and final, bars a second suit on the same contract.