Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

010 Phil 360:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4085. March 12, 1908. ]

CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Chicote and Miranda, for Appellant.

Francisco G. Quiros, in his own behalf.

SYLLABUS


1. RES JUDICATA. — Under the general American rule a former judgment for the same cause operates between parties thereto and their privies as a bar to all matters which might have been litigated therein; whereas one for a different cause bars matters only actually litigated. It seems that this rule is not changed by sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. ID. — A judgment in an action for damages for the loss of property seized under an attachment which was afterwards vacated is a bar to an action between the same parties to recover the property itself or its value.


D E C I S I O N


TRACEY, J. :


This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in favor of the defendants.

In the year 1893 the defendant Quiros brought an action against the plaintiff in which he obtained from the Court of First Instance of the district of Intramuros an attachment, which was levied upon property of the plaintiff consisting of certain promissory notes and money, a quantity of hemp and coprax, and a stock of merchandise and furniture.

The defendant Jose Reyes Tolentino, an employee of Quiros, was named official depository of the attached property, an appointment which he accepted in writing.

In January, 1894, a second attachment, at the instance of Germann and Co., was levied upon the same property. Both these attachments became of no effect, the first through an order of dissolution by the court in November, 1897, and the second by lapse.

In 1904 a new attachment was issued in the action of Germann and Co. under which what remained of the hemp and coprax was sold at public auction for P838, the sheriff certifying that it was then impossible to find any other part of the property to be attached. Under the earlier attachments the official depository, the defendant Reyes, never took possession, notwithstanding his written acceptance, but suffered the goods to remain in the custody of Quiros, who kept the stock of merchandise in the lower apartments of his house on Calle Martinez. From this house it was taken in 1898 by Mr. Andrea, the Belgian consul, the agent for the owner of the property, but under what precise claim or circumstances is not shown. The key of the apartment in which the merchandise was stored was in the possession of Quiros, who does not appear to have opposed the removal.

This action is brought "for the restitution and delivery to the plaintiff" of all the attached property, "or, in default of that, for the payment of the sum of P18,000, Philippine currency, the value of the said property."cralaw virtua1aw library

Among the defenses pleaded was res judicata based on a judgment of this court modifying one of the Court of First Instance upon a counterclaim set up by the present plaintiff, as defendant in an action brought against him by Quiros for the purchase price of goods, sold, decided on March 3, 1906, and reported in 5 Philippine Reports, page 675. In the counterclaim it was stated "that the defendant, Carlos Palanca Tanguinlay, in consequence of the attachment improperly granted and levied on his property, goods, effects, and papers of all kinds, suffered damage (daños) to the extent of P20,000 and loss of profits (perjuicios) for more than P40,000, to wit: Damages consisting in the loss of his property, furniture, goods, and papers, and for having under the attachment closed his shop, destroyed his business, and suspended his credit, all of which had a value of more than P25,000, and loss of profits, consisting in the loss of the receipt of the gains of his business, which were more than 10,000 pesos, Mexican currency, for each year from 1893 to 1897, amounting to the sum of P40,000." that is to say, among the damages expressly claimed was compensation for the loss of the same property described in the complaint in the action now before us. On this claim the Court of First Instance in the earlier action allowed 6,347 pesos, an allowance which was overruled in this court, the judgment as to that item having been reversed.

The question presented here is whether this former judgment operates as an adjudication upon the matter of the present action so that it can not be retried.

The law of res judicata is well settled in the Unites States and is laid down in a series of decisions of the Supreme Court to the effect that as between the parties to the first judgment and their privies it operates as a bar to a second action upon the same claim, not only as to issues actually in litigation but also as to all matters which might have been litigated therein, whereas in an action between them upon a different cause it is a bar only as to matters actually litigated. (Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S., 351; Werlin v. New Orleans, 177 U.S., 390; United States v. California Co., 192 U. S., 355; Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U. S., 276, 299; N. P. Railway Co. v. Slaght, 205 U. S., 122.)

These cases, as well as many others cited therein, indicate that the tendency of jurisprudence is to broaden the doctrine rather than to narrow it, on the ground that both public and private interest demand a cessation of litigation, requiring the litigants to avail themselves once and for all the remedies open them i a pending action.

Section 306 of the Philippine Code of Civil Procedure provides that in cases other than those in rem —

". . .the judgment so ordered is, in respect to the matter directly adjudged, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to commencement of the action or special proceedings, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity."cralaw virtua1aw library

And section 307 —

"That only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is not probate that the compilers of our code, by the restrictive language of these sections, sought to charge the general rule as laid down by the cases cited from the Supreme Court. Indeed it is to be assumed that they did not, as these sections were taken by them bodily from section 1908 and 1911 of the code of the State of California, of which they are reproductions, in which have been construed by the courts of that State in harmony with the general rule. (Taylor v. Castle, 42 Cal., 367; Phelan v. Gardner, 43 Cal., 306, 311; Woolverton v. Baker, 98 Cal., 628; Toomy v. Hale, 100 Cal., 172; Reed v. Cross, 116 Cal., 473; Bingham v. Kearney, 136 Cal., 175 Estate of Harrington, 147 Cal., 124, 128.)

In Bingham v. Kearney the court said (p. 177):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is a rule, long recognized in this country, that a judgment between the same parties is conclusive, not only as to the subject-matter in controversy in the action upon which it is based but also in all other actions involving the same question, and upon all matters involved in the issues which might have been litigated and decided in the case, the presumption being that all such issues were met and decided. It is the policy of the law to put an end to litigation, and to aid the vigilant and not those who sleep upon their rights. It is not policy of the law to allow a new and different suit between the same parties, concerning the same subject-matter, that has already been litigated; neither will the law allow the parties to trifle with the courts by piecemeal litigation.

x       x       x


"If she failed to assert her claim properly or to present the proper evidence in the first suit, she will not now be permitted in a second to litigate it. The principles herein stated are elementary."cralaw virtua1aw library

Although not binding upon us, this interpretation by the California courts of the sections of their code reproduced in our own must have been known to our legislators when adopting them and leave it open to us to accepts as a rule in this jurisdiction the doctrine cited from the cases of the Supreme Court of the United States. For the purposes of the present case, however, it is not necessary to go further than to say that, even under the narrowest construction of the code, we are of the opinion that the words "litigating for the same thing" suffice to bring this pending action within the effect of the former one, and also that "the thing" that must have been deemed to have been adjudged in the former judgment, so appearing upon its face, was the conversion of the specific property sued for in this case. What was determined by the first judgment was that Quiros was not liable, for the reason that no damage was shown to have been suffered by the property during the short them while in his possession, nor was he liable thereafter, for the reason that the property had been taken from him and sold under the attachment of German & Co. This reasoning proceeded upon what now proves to have been an error of fact, the assumption that all the property went into the possession of Germann & Co. under their first attachment and was sold by them. Upon that assumption, a proper deduction from the evidence which these plaintiffs then presented to the court, the judgment was undoubtedly correct. In this action they now undertake that it was wrong by means of the other proofs. These proofs were in existence at the time of the first trial and should have been produced then. It is too late now for the plaintiff to try to repair the error by means of a retrial of the issues then determined.

It is urged that the question in the two cases is not the same, because in the first damages only were asked for the property lost, whereas in the second the property itself is pursued, with the incidental demand for damages in case of its loss. the statement of the claim is its own refutation. Courts at the present day are not concerned so much with the form of action this plaintiff could not have recovered, if the goods had been shown to have been not lost but still in the possession of this adversary. Under such circumstances, on a refusal to deliver, he could have had judgment for their value or, even, by proper amendment of his pleading, for a return of the property. In the language of the code of Civil Procedure, the parties in the two suits were "litigating for the same thing" and the possession of that thing "appears upon the face of the judgment to have been so adjudged" and it obviously was "actually and necessarily included therein and necessary thereto." It does not effect the principle that the judgment was erroneous. The error should have been shown in the trial of the first action. The American books are full of similar cases, an instance being Hatch v. Coddington (32 Minn., 92), in which it was held that a former action between the same parties to recover damages for a wrongful conversion of personal property was a bar to a subsequently suit to recover possession of the specific property itself, notwithstanding the difference of from and that the relief sought and the subject-matter of the cause of action were regarded as the same. Nor is it altogether clear that the law of Spain was different. Señor Manresa, in his commentary on article 1252 of the Civil Code, cities a decision of the supreme court of the 25th of April, 1900 [vol. 8, p. 555], holding that in a real action a a judgment in a former personal suit between the same parties for indemnity for the use of the same property operated as cosa juzgada.

The allowance of this defense of this defense leads to an affirmance of the judgment of the court below in favor of the defendant, with the cost of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Torres, J., did not sit in this case.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-4447 March 6, 1908 - MURPHY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-3880 March 9, 1908 - TEOPISTA CASTRO v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS

    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-4209 March 19, 1908 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES

    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-4241 March 20, 1908 - AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES v. ADMIN. F THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA

    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 27, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEJANDRO AMECHAZURRA

    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-3007 March 30, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

    010 Phil 707