G.R. Nos. 170746-47 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the consolidated petitions under consideration are hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the assailed orders of the [RTC of Manila] dated July 2, 2002 and August 30, 2002 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED . [21] The CA concurred with the RTC of Manila that the finality of the Order dated March 28, 2001 issued by the RTC of Catbalogan has the effect of res judicata , which barred the respondents' motion to intervene and complaint-in-intervention with the RTC of Manila. [22] The CA also considered the filing of motion for reconsideration by the petitioners before the RTC of Catbalogan as tantamount to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the said court over their person. [23] The CA rationalized that "[i]t is basic that as long as the party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process." [24] The motions for reconsideration having been denied by the CA in its Order [25] dated December 8, 2005, only the petitioners elevated the matter before this Court by way of petition for review on certiorari [26] under Rule 45. The Parties' Arguments The petitioners contended that not all the elements of res judicata are present in this case which would warrant its application as the RTC of Catbalogan did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons and that the judgment therein is not one on the merits. [27] It was also adduced that only the respondents were heard in the RTC of Catbalogan because when the petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration, the order of dismissal was already final and executory. [28] The petitioners also bewailed that other complaints were accepted by the RTC of Manila in the consolidated cases despite prescription of the cause of action [29] and that the real issue of merit is whether the defense of prescription that has matured can be waived. [30] They explained that they were not able to file for the annulment of judgment or order of the RTC of Catbalogan since the respondents precluded them from seeking such remedy by filing a motion for intervention in the consolidated cases before the RTC of Manila. [31] On the other side, the respondents maintained that the waiver on prescription is not the issue but bar by prior judgment is, because when they filed their motion for intervention, the dismissal meted out by the RTC of Catbalogan was already final. [32] According to the respondents, if the petitioners intended to have the dismissal reversed, the latter should have appealed from the order of the RTC of Catbalogan or filed a petition for certiorari against the said order or an action to nullify the same. [33] The respondents also elucidated that they could not have precluded the petitioners from assailing the RTC of Catbalogan's orders because it was not until May 6, 2002 when the respondents filed a motion for intervention with the consolid