Same evidence test in res judicata
It is a settled rule that the application of the doctrine of res
judicata to identical causes of action
does not depend on the similarity or differences in the forms of the two
actions. A party cannot, by varying the form of the action or by adopting a different
method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the doctrine of res
judicata.[1] The test of identity of causes of action rests on
whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the
present causes of action.[2]
The Supreme Court held in Esperas v. The Court of
Appeals[3] that the ultimate test in determining the presence of identity of cause of action is to consider
whether the same evidence would support the cause of action in both the first
and the second cases. Under the same evidence test, when the same evidence support and establish both the present and the former
causes of action, there is likely an identity of causes of action.[4]
[1] Francisco v. de Bias, et al., 93 Phil. 1 (1953).
[2] Spouses Torres v. Medina, G.R. No. 166730, March 10, 2010.
[3] G.R. No. 121182, October 2, 2000, 341 SCRA 583, citing Bachrach Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 483 (1998).
The Supreme Court held in Esperas v. The Court of
Appeals[3] that the ultimate test in determining the presence of identity of cause of action is to consider
whether the same evidence would support the cause of action in both the first
and the second cases. Under the same evidence test, when the same evidence support and establish both the present and the former
causes of action, there is likely an identity of causes of action.[4]
[2] Spouses Torres v. Medina, G.R. No. 166730, March 10, 2010.
[3] G.R. No. 121182, October 2, 2000, 341 SCRA 583, citing Bachrach Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 483 (1998).
[4] Spouses Antonio v. Sayman, G.R. No. 149624, September 29, 2010.
