Disclaimer: The following discussion is provided for academic and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific concerns, you should consult a qualified attorney who can address your unique circumstances.

BAR BY PRIOR JUDGMENT (Res Judicata in Philippine Law)

In Philippine remedial law, res judicata is a fundamental doctrine designed to give finality to judicial controversies. It precludes parties from re-litigating issues and claims that a competent court has already resolved in a prior final judgment. Res judicata is recognized under Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which deals with the effect of judgments.

Generally, res judicata has two (2) aspects:

Bar by prior judgment (also known as res judicata in the cause of action).
Conclusiveness of judgment (also known as res judicata in the issues).

This discussion focuses on the first aspect—Bar by Prior Judgment—sometimes simply referred to as res judicata proper or estoppel by judgment.

1. Concept and Policy Rationale

1.1. Concept

Bar by prior judgment means that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving:

The same parties (or their successors-in-interest);
The same subject matter; and
The same cause of action.

Once a court has conclusively decided a cause of action, the losing party cannot bring another suit on the same cause of action, for the same relief, against the same party. This principle is designed to ensure finality of litigation and stability in legal relations.

1.2. Policy Underlying Res Judicata

Courts encourage finality of judgments and aim to avoid:

Multiple suits: Prevents the filing of repetitive actions based on the same cause;
Waste of judicial resources: Court time and resources are conserved;
Harassment of defendants: Ensures that a party will not be endlessly vexed by the same claims;
Public interest in finality: Inspires confidence in the judicial system.

2. Requisites of Bar by Prior Judgment

For the doctrine of bar by prior judgment (res judicata in its first concept) to apply, all the following elements must concur:

Finality of Judgment
- The former judgment must be final. Typically, this means no further appeal or review is available, or the period to file an appeal has lapsed without the losing party having taken any steps for review.
Court of Competent Jurisdiction
- The judgment must have been rendered by a court (or tribunal) which had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties. A judgment by a court that lacked jurisdiction cannot operate to bar subsequent suits.
Judgment on the Merits
- The judgment must have resolved the controversy on the basis of the parties’ rights and obligations, not on a mere technicality or a procedural matter. It should squarely address the merits of the case.
- A dismissal based on a technical ground (e.g., improper venue without prejudice, lack of cause of action without prejudice) is generally not a judgment on the merits. However, a dismissal with prejudice (e.g., for failure to prosecute, or on demurrer to evidence granted on the merits) has the effect of a judgment on the merits.
Identity of Parties, Subject Matter, and Cause of Action
- The same parties (or their successors-in-interest) must be involved in both suits.
- The subject matter in both suits must be the same (e.g., the same piece of property, the same contract, the same set of operative facts).
- The cause of action (or claims) asserted in the prior action must be identical to that in the second action.
  - Note: A cause of action is determined by the delict or wrong or the “body of facts” that a party sets forth as the basis for his or her right to judicial relief. If the “wrong” sued upon or the relief sought in the second suit is essentially the same as in the first suit, there is identity of causes of action.

2.1. Identity of Causes of Action: The “Test of Identity”

A standard approach for determining identity of causes of action is the “test of identity of causes of action.” Courts ask whether the same evidence would support or establish the causes of action in the first and the second case. If substantially the same evidence is needed to prove both, the causes of action are considered identical.

3. Effect of Bar by Prior Judgment

When a second action is barred by a prior judgment, the effect is to prevent litigation of the entire cause of action again. Specifically:

Extinguishment of the Claim: The first judgment extinguishes the underlying claim and merges it in the judgment.
Prevents Re-litigation: Neither party can raise issues or remedies that were or could have been raised in the first action.
Authority of the Resolved Claims: The rights and obligations adjudged in the prior case become binding and conclusive with respect to that cause of action, as between the same parties (or their privies).

4. Comparison: Bar by Prior Judgment vs. Conclusiveness of Judgment

Bar by Prior Judgment (first aspect of res judicata) differs from Conclusiveness of Judgment (second aspect) in scope:

Bar by Prior Judgment
- Precludes the filing of a subsequent action altogether when the four (4) requisites concur.
- Bars the entire cause of action, including all issues that were raised or could have been raised in the first suit.
Conclusiveness of Judgment
- Applies where the second action is based on a different cause of action from that in the first.
- The issues actually adjudicated in the first case cannot be litigated anew, even if presented under a different cause of action.

In short, bar by prior judgment forecloses a second suit on the same cause of action, while conclusiveness of judgment only binds the parties as to the issues actually litigated and decided in a prior case, even if the second suit is different.

5. Notable Jurisprudential Principles

Matters That Could Have Been Raised
- In bar by prior judgment, the conclusive effect extends to not only those claims or defenses actually raised in the prior litigation, but also to those that could have been raised therein.
- Parties are expected to bring all related claims in one proceeding; they cannot reserve some for a second round of litigation.
Rigid Application vs. Substantial Justice
- While res judicata is strictly applied in the interest of finality, courts occasionally allow exceptions in the interest of justice if there was extrinsic fraud, lack of due process, or other extraordinary circumstances. However, these exceptions are very narrowly construed.
Survival of the Doctrine Despite Amendments
- The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (and the subsequent amendments) continue to recognize res judicata. Under the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the essence of the doctrine remains the same.
Public Policy Against Split Causes of Action
- Philippine courts, consistent with the rules against multiplicity of suits, discourage the splitting of a single cause of action into multiple suits. If a single cause of action is split across separate lawsuits, one final judgment on part of that cause of action may operate to bar the remainder under res judicata.
Examples of “Court of Competent Jurisdiction”
- A decision by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on a civil claim, if within its jurisdictional amount or nature of subject matter, bars a second action involving the same parties and cause.
- A ruling by a quasi-judicial agency (e.g., the National Labor Relations Commission, DARAB, etc.) may also have res judicata effect if it acts within its statutory jurisdiction and the decision becomes final.

6. Practical Considerations in Litigation

Pleading Res Judicata
- Res judicata may be raised as an affirmative defense in a defendant’s Answer under the Rules of Court.
- Failure to raise it in a timely manner may, in some situations, lead to a waiver of the defense. However, because of its public policy implications, courts sometimes allow the defense of res judicata to be raised even at the appellate stage if it is apparent from the pleadings or judicial records.
Judicial Notice of Final Judgments
- Courts can take judicial notice of their own records in prior cases or the final judgments rendered by coordinate or higher courts, and thus promptly dismiss a case barred by res judicata.
- If the records show a final judgment by a competent tribunal on the same cause of action and between the same parties, the court may dismiss the second case sua sponte (on its own initiative).
Strategy in Filing Lawsuits
- Litigants and their counsel must ensure that all possible causes of action or all relevant claims tied to a single wrong are combined to avoid future dismissal on grounds of bar by prior judgment.
- Careful analysis of jurisdiction and the nature of the dismissal is crucial; a dismissal “with prejudice” typically operates as a judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.

7. Key Provisions (Rules of Court)

Rule 39, Section 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended) states in pertinent part:

“The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court or judge of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or order, may be as follows:
(a) …
(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….”
Although Section 47 explicitly mentions “conclusiveness of judgment,” it is generally accepted in jurisprudence that paragraph (b) likewise embraces the concept of bar by prior judgment when the cause of action is identical in both suits.

8. Illustrative Supreme Court Decisions

Heirs of Julao v. Avila – Reiterated the four essential requisites and emphasized that a final judgment on the merits is crucial.
City of Mandaluyong v. Francisco (G.R. No. 192371, March 20, 2013) – Clarified that matters that could have been raised in the prior action are barred in the subsequent action.
Republic v. Court of Appeals (335 SCRA 166 [2000]) – Confirmed the importance of jurisdiction and finality in applying res judicata.
RPN, Inc. v. Vargas – Showed that even if new issues or slight variations in the facts were introduced, the second suit could still be barred when the underlying cause of action was essentially the same.

Conclusion

Bar by prior judgment is a cornerstone of procedural law in the Philippines, preventing the re-litigation of the same cause of action once there is a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. It promotes the public policy of finality and judicial economy, ensuring that once a court of law has adjudged a dispute, neither party may burden the judicial system (or each other) by resurrecting the same claim.

To avoid running afoul of this doctrine, litigants must:

Carefully assess their claims and consolidate all causes of action arising from the same wrong;
Ensure that they fully and diligently litigate or defend their case in the first action; and
Take note of whether a dismissal or judgment is “with prejudice” or “on the merits,” as these keywords often determine if res judicata will apply in future related suits.

Once the requisites of res judicata in the concept of bar by prior judgment are satisfied, courts will dismiss any subsequent action involving the same parties, same subject matter, and the same cause of action, thus upholding the principle that there must be an end to litigation.