Res judicata

Res judicata lays down two (2) main rules:
  1. The judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties and their privies and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal; and
  2. Any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claims or demands, purposes, or subject matters of the two suits are the same.[1]
The first rule refers to "bar by former judgment" while the second rule is referred to as "conclusiveness of judgment." From the petition, it appears that petition claims the second concept of res judicata as applicable here.

Conclusiveness of judgment, otherwise known as the rule of auter action pendent,[2] is where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action. The first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein.[3]Stated otherwise, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive between the parties and those in privity with them.[4]

Conclusiveness of judgment operates as estoppel with respect to matters in issue or points controverted, on the determination of which the finding or judgment was anchored.[5] For conclusiveness of judgment to apply, the following elements have to be present:
  1. FINALITY. The judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
  2. DECISION WITH JURISDICTION. The decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
  3. JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS. The disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and
  4. IDENTITY. There must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, but not identity of causes of action.[6]
[1] Spouses Noceda, et al. v. Arbizo-Directo, 639 Phil. 483, 491 (2010).

[2] See Ley Construction & Development Corp., et al. v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank, et al.,635 Phil. 503(2010).

[3] Oropeza Marketing Corporation, etc. v. Allied Banking Corporation, 441 Phil. 551, 564 (2002).

[4] Cruz, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al, 517 Phil. 572, 586 (2006); citing Stilianopulos v. The City of Legaspi, 374 Phil. 879,897(1999).

[5] Spouses Camara v. Court of Appeals, et al., 369 Phil. 858 868(1999).

[6] Spouses Rosario v. Alvar, G.R. No. 212731, September 6,2017.