Res judicata vs. Conclusiveness of judgment

"xxx.

Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment."72 It rises from the underlying idea that parties should not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once, and that a right or fact that has already been judicially determined by a competent court should be conclusive as to the parties.73 More than being a technicality, the Court has long pronounced this as a fundamental precept designed to promote just, fair and speedy justice.74 This doctrine is set forth in Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which in its relevant part reads:


Section. 47. Effect of Judgments or Final Orders. — The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:


x x x


(b)
In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and


(c)
In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.



In Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan,75 the Court elucidated on the concept and appreciation of conclusiveness of judgment:


Conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest). and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the conclusively settled fact or question furthermore cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.

While conclusiveness of judgment does not have the same barring effect as that of a bar by former judgment that proscribes subsequent actions, the former nonetheless estops the parties from raising in a later case the issues or points that were raised and controverted, and were determinative of the ruling in the earlier case. In other words, the dictum laid down in the earlier final judgment or order becomes conclusive and continues to be binding between the same parties, their privies and successors-in-interest, as long as the facts on which that judgment was predicated continue to be the facts of the case or incident before the court in a later case; the binding effect and enforceability of that earlier dictum can no longer be re-litigated in a later case since the issue has already been resolved and finally laid to rest in the earlier case.76


Before res judicata can apply, the following requisites must be present: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must be rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action.77


Xxx."


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Prejudicial question liberally construed

"xxx.

Given the foregoing, and as applied to the instant controversy, the Court finds that although the facts of this case involve a criminal action which preceded the institution of the civil action, a prejudicial question nevertheless exists because a survey of the jurisprudential appreciation and application of the doctrine of a prejudicial question demonstrably shows that the strict sequence of institution of the two actions as provided for by Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is more directory than mandatory, and must give way to the chief litmus test of whether the two actions involve prejudicial issues and facts that are similar or otherwise intimately related so that a resolution in one concludes the resolution in the other.

The directory application of the sequence of institution of actions, i.e., the civil case must precede the criminal action, is supported by the fact that the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are prefaced by the instruction that it must be liberally construed, and that this procedural requirement must be seen in light of the more general principle that substantive rights must prevail over procedural rules. As astutely observed by literature on the framework of the application of the doctrine of prejudicial question in the Philippines:


The very fact that the Court each and every time considered whether or not the criminal case is dependent on the civil case or whether or not the civil case is determinative of the guilt of the accused, before declaring whether or not a prejudicial question exists, indicates that while the Rules may have been phrased in such strict manner, the substance of the issues involved are more important than the mere sequence provided for in the Rules.

According to the Rules, the elements of a prejudicial question are that (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in a subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. It must be noted that the words "previous" and "subsequent" may be more apparent than the other words, such as "issues" "similarly[,]" "resolution[,]" and "determines," provided for in the rule. A reading of the decisions, however, militate against the conclusion that the Court gives less importance to the determinative factor of the issue in the civil case, than on whether or not the strict sequence is followed.

Hence, the rule is directory insofar as the strict sequence of the cases is involved, but is mandatory as to the requirement that the issue in the civil case must be so similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case, so as to determine whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Consequently, there are instances when the strict sequence may be dispensed with for as long as the mandatory requirement as to the determinative, similar or intimately related issue is present.103


Xxx. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Prejudicial question

"xxx.

In sum, the prejudicial factual finding of genuineness of Sps. Granda's signatures on the questioned Deeds of Sale in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135 must operate to bar the prosecution of respondents for the falsification of the same signatures on the same questioned Deeds of Sale. This is the heart of the doctrine of a prejudicial question, without the appreciation of which the application of said doctrine may never come to be.

Finally, petitioner's submission that it must be allowed to present new evidence in order to establish the allegation of forgery which was already conclusively found as without basis in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135, is to completely render nugatory the very premise of a prejudicial question, for one, and the value of finality of judgments, for another.

Chiefly, the doctrine of a prejudicial question serves the following purposes: (i) to avoid multiplicity of suits; (ii) avoid unnecessary litigation; (iii) avoid conflicting decisions; (iv) safeguard the rights of the accused; and (v) unclog the courts' dockets.115 Therefore, if petitioner is allowed to effectively relitigate a point of prejudicial fact already tried and found by another court in a civil case, and which has, in this case, already attained finality, then the above purposes of the doctrine of a prejudicial question will be wholly defeated.

To be sure, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that there may have been failures on the discharge of proof of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135. However, the Court cannot turn away from the pivotal fact that the said civil case already held as unfounded the very same allegation of forgery that the pending criminal cases seek to prove. What's more, said factual finding in the Civil Case No. 2001-09-135 had already obtained finality, when the decision of the RTC therein became final with the CA's Resolution dated October 26, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00990.

Unfortunately for petitioner's cause, therefore, the Court finds no outweighing benefit in overturning the finality of RTC-Branch 9's decision in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135, the core finding of which predisposes the Court now to dismiss the pending criminal cases.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 27, 2015 and Resolution dated September 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals Former Eighteenth Division in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 01796 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City in Criminal Case Nos. 2008-03-109 to 111 against respondent Robert Lastrilla, and Criminal Case Nos. 2001-07-482 to 484 against respondent Camilo Camenforte are AFFIRMED by virtue of the existence of a prejudicial question.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Xxx. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Public document - presumption of regularity of genuineness and due execution

"xxx.

In addition, the requirement of clear and convincing proof in ousting the presumption of genuineness and due execution of a public document is further echoed in Bernardo v. Court of Appeals,113 viz.:

It is a fact that the transaction between private respondent and the spouses Bernardo was reduced into writing by way of a document denominated "Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage." This document, admitted as signed by private respondent and his wife, was duly notarized by Notary Public Pedro B. Binuya and had two instrumental witnesses. Being a notarized document, it had in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to overcome the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise the document should be upheld.

The question that must be addressed, therefore, is: Was the evidence presented by private respondent against the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant? We do not think so.

Far from being clear and convincing, all that private respondent offered by way of evidence was his and his wife's mere denial that they had intended to sell the subject land. Such bare and unsubstantiated denial will not suffice to overcome the positive presumption of the due execution of the subject Deed, being a notarized document. Indeed, when the evidence is conflicting, the public document must still be upheld.114chanRoblesvirtualLawl

Xxx."


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Notarized documents and presumption of regularity

"xxx.

In the same vein, clear and convincing evidence is similarly required to overcome the due execution and genuineness that a public document is imbued with. Without such proof, a gaping doubt results in the criminal prosecution for falsification. Such doubt becomes irremediable when said presumption of due execution is elevated to the level of a final and conclusive finding of a competent court in a civil case.

The case of Aznar Brothers Realty Co. v. Court of Appeals,111 illustrates how the Court dovetailed the importance of proving a claim of falsification in a public document through clear and convincing proof, otherwise the latter's presumption of genuineness is maintained, to wit:

It is worthy to note that the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale is a notarized document. As such, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. He who denies its due execution has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the Acknowledgment he never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed to be his voluntary act. It must also be stressed that whoever alleges forgery has the burden of proving the same. Forgery cannot be presumed but should be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Private respondents failed to discharge this burden of proof; hence, the presumption in favor of the questioned deed stands.112


Xxx. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Best evidence of forged document

"x x x.

Further on this score, the Court reminds with significance that in order to establish an allegation of forgery in a civil case, a party forwarding the same must establish so through clear and convincing proof. The Court quotes its instructive rationale in the case of Heirs of Gregorio v. Court of Appeals,109 thus:

Basic is the rule of evidence that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. This is especially true when the issue is that of forgery.

As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged. Without the original document containing the alleged forged signature, one cannot make a definitive comparison which would establish forgery. A comparison based on a mere xerox copy or reproduction of the document under controversy cannot produce reliable results.110

X x x."


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Forgery

"x x x.

It is further crucial to remember that RTC-Branch 9, the RTC in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135, already found that with the claim of forgery unfounded, the Deeds of Sale are considered to have been validly executed, viz.:

x x x This Court is not impressed with the said evidence presented by the plaintiffs in support of their claim that the three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale were falsified, hence null and void.

In the case of Veloso vs. CA. 260 SCRA 593, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that:

Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged; forgery cannot be presumed. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. Just like the petitioner, witness Atty. Tubig merely pointed out that his signature was different from that in the Power of Attorney and Deed of Sale. There had never been an accurate examination of the signature, even that of the petitioner.

To determine forgery, it was held in Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 54719-50m, 17 Hab 185) quoting Osbora x x x that:

The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind and significance of this resemblance as well as the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of more skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered, the whole problem of identification is solved.
Failure, therefore, on the part of the plaintiffs to show that the variation of the signature in Exhibit "E" (if ever there was) with that of the three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale was due to the operation of a different personality negates their claim of forgery and cannot overcome the regularity of the herein questioned documents.107
X x x. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757