G.R. No. 110921 - BALTAZAR L. VILLANUEVA, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, GRACE OPPUS VILLANUEVA, FRANCISCO O. VILLANUEVA, AND MA. PAS O. VILLANUEVA.*

Ruling

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has declared that even if for purposes of argument, res judicata is applicable to a case, it is always in the power of the court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it (Vda. de Ordeveza vs. Raymundo, 63 Phil. 275 cited in Ronquillo v. Marasigan, 5 SCRA 304, pp. 312-313). Hence, in the interest of justice and not in view of the arguments raised by the plaintiff, the court resolves to deny the present motion. WHEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED. [4] Subsequently, on August 4, 1992, petitioner filed a Supplemental Complaint. The same was admitted by the trial court and gave private respondent time to file a consolidated answer. Instead, private respondents moved to dismiss raising once again the reasons of forum-shopping, res judicata and estoppel. On December 3, 1992, the trial court denied said motion to dismiss. Thus, on a petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals, private respondents assailed the aforementioned orders of the lower court dated March 11, 1992 and December 3, 1992. On July 12, 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision upholding the ground for dismissal but made the following disquisition: Nonetheless, considering the special circumstances of the case pointed out by respondent Judge, We strongly urge private respondents to elevate this decision to the Supreme Court who alone has the power to suspend the rules. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus prayed for is granted. The Orders of respondent Judge dated March 11, 1992 and December 3, 1992 are annulled and set aside. Respondent Judge is enjoined from further proceeding with Civil Case No. Q-91-10741 except to dismiss the same. [5] Taking the cue from the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed the instant petition. Petitioner insists that res judicata does not apply because the two complaints have different parties and causes of action. Nonetheless, assuming res judicata applies the rules of procedure can still be disregarded in favor of substantial justice. Petitioners contentions are untenable. Both the respondent court and the trial court found that res judicata applies in the instant case. Quoting from the Order of March 11, 1992 as contained in the Court of Appeals decision, the trial court explained: After a careful and judicious deliberation on the arguments of the plaintiff and the defendants, the Court finds that indeed, the principle of res judicata applies in the instant case. The requisites of res judicata are the following: a) The former judgment or order must be final; b) It must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case; c) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and d) There must be, between the first