Distinguish bar by prior judgment from conclusiveness of

judgment.
Questions:
1) Identity of subject matter not required in conclusiveness of judgment?
Connflicting between those stated in UP/Beda reviewer and GR
150470
Take note also:
Stare decisis v. Res judicata v. Law of the case
Stare d
Stare decisis is to stand on a decided case. Courts must use previous courts
holding and apply to future cases with same set of facts to insure uniformity of law.
Res judicata simply states that you cant re-sue a party on a matter already
decided upon.
Law of the case: See GR L-22465, which states:
Suffice it to say that our ruling in Case L-13027, rendered on the first appeal, constitutes
the law of the case, and, even if erroneous, it may no longer be disturbed or modified
since it has become final long ago. A subsequent reinterpretation of the law may be
applied to new cases but certainly not to an old one finally and conclusively determined
(People vs. Pinuila, G.R. No. L-11374, May 30, 1958; 55 O.G. 4228).
'Law of the case' has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. More
specifically, it means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controling legal
rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the
case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. (21 C.J.S.
330). (cited in Pinuila case, supra)

See p. 541 of Riano, Rule 39, Sec. 47, SSC v. Rizal Poultry G.R.167050,
Sps. Layos v. Fil-Estate G.R. 150470
Res judicata lays down 2 principles/embraces 2 concepts, and
these are bar by a prior judgment and conclusiveness of
judgment. These are enunciated also by law in Rule 39, Section
47.
The elements of res judicata are (1) the judgment sought to bar the
new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered
by a court with competent jursidiction; (3) the disposition of the
case must be a judgment on the merits; (4) there must be as between
the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and
cause/s of action. Should identity of parites, subject matter, and
cause/s of action be seen in the two cases, then res judicata in its
aspect as a bar by prior judgment would apply. If there is only
identity of parties and subject matter but the cause/s of action are
different, only res judicata as conclusiveness of judgment will
apply.
With regard (3), Section 3 of Rule 17 will apply as an exception
wherein if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to
comply with with these rules or any order of the court, the action
may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the courts
own motion. This dismissal shall have an effect of an adjudication
upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by the Court.
With regard (4) identity of parties, jurisprudence does not dictate
absolute identity but only substantial identity. There is substantial
identity when there is a community of interest between a party in
the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was
not impleaded in the second case. One cannot evade the application
of res judicata by simply including additional parties in a subsequent
litigation.
In the bar by a prior judgment, there must have been prior
litigation in which identical claims were raised (or could have been
raised). The judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to
the second action. If judgment is rendered in favor of a plaintiff in a
particular suit, the plaintiff is precluded from raising claims (in any
future litigation) which were raised in (or could have been raised) in
that lawsuit.
In conclusiveness of judgment, there must have been a prior
litigation in which the identical issue was brought before the court.
The identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity
of issues. The issue must necessarily have been decided and
rendered as a necessary part of the courts final judgment. If an issue
has been decided in a particular case, it is treated as decided
without further proofin any subsequent litigation that involves
the issue. In other words, a person or party who seeks to relitigate
any already decided issue is collaterally stopped from doing so.
Unlike a bar by a prior judgment, conclusiveness of
judgment/collateral estoppel does not bar future litigation over
issues not actually raised in the original judicial proceeding, even if
the issues could have been raised.

Distinguish cause of action v. action

See Rule 2, Secs. 1 & 2; UP revieweer: p. 28-31

Take note also:

Right of action v. Cause of action (p. 31 of UP)

Kinds of actions:
o Civil or Criminal
o Ordinary or Special

Ordinary

In general, actions are defined as an ordinary suit in court of justice

by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or
protection of a right or the prevention of a wrong.
According to Rule 2, Section 1, every ordinary civil action must be
based on a cause of action. Rule 2, Section 2 provides that a cause
of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of

As to place: local or transitory

As to object: in personam, in
rem, or quasi in rem
As to cause or foundation: real or
personal

another. Its elements are:

(1) Plaintiffs legal right; (2) Defendants correlative
obligation to respect plaintiffs right; (3) Defendants
act/omission in violation of plaintiffs right

Distinguish civil actions from special proceedings.

See UP Reviewer p. 28-29

Questions:
1) Check p. 29, not sure about as to formalities, governing rules, and as
to appeal from interlocutory order

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the

enforcement or protection of a right or for the protection or redress
of a wrong.
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish
a status, right, or a particular fact.
Difference between the 2:

As to parties: Special proceedings may involve at least 1 party

As to cause of action: Special proceedings may involve a right,

but a violation thereof is not necessary

What is the difference , if any, between the conciliation proceedings

under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law and the negotiations for an
amicable settlement during the pre-trial conference under the Rules
of Court?

See R.A. 7160 itself! Kaloka! UP pp. 199-200 may about KP Law, pero
wala yung sagot.
Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang
pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person
without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for
minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin
who are not lawyers.
Wala daw ganiyang prohibition sa Rules of Court.

a) How should the records of child and family cases in the Family
Courts or RTC designated by the Supreme Court to handle Family
Court cases be treated and dealt with?
b) Under what conditions may the identity of parties in child and
family cases be divulged?
What is an interlocutory order?