DOCTRINE 2: The doctrine of 

res judicata  refers to the rule that a final judgment or

decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of
the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the
former suit. It rests on the principle that parties should not to be permitted to litigate
the same issue more than once; that, 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, so long as it remains unreversed, should be
conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.

Burgundy Realty Corporation, et. al., vs. MAA General Assurance Phils., Inc. |
G.R. No. 225610, February 19, 2020

Facts:
Burgundy entered into a Short Term Loan Agreement whereby Chinatrust Commercial
Banking Corporation (Chinatrust) granted Burgundy a loan of P50,000,000.00 payable
within two years. In the early part of 2008, Burgundy applied for a surety bond with
MAA to serve as partial guarantee for the Short Term Loan Agreement. Burgundy then
issued Surety Bond MAAGAP No. 755 in the amount of P25,000,000.00. For and in
consideration of the surety agreement, petitioners executed an Indemnity Agreement
whereby petitioners obligated themselves to, among other obligations, indemnify MAA
and keep it indemnified for, and hold and save it harmless from all damages,
payments, advances, losses, costs, stamps, taxes, penalties, charges, attorney’s fees,
and expenses for having become surety under Surety Bond MAAGAP No. 755. MAA
alleged that Serafica and Nakpil signed the Indemnity Agreement both in their official
and personal capacities.
Subsequently, Chinatrust wrote MAA a series of demand letters for the payment of
P25,000,000.00. MAA then sent advice letters to petitioners, but the latter ignored the
letters. Thus, Chinatrust filed a complaint for sum of money against MAA before RTC,
Makati City which ordered MAA to pay Chinatrust P25,000,000.00 plus interest. MAA
paid Chinatrust P25,000,000.00.
Thus, MAA sent demand letters to petitioners. Petitioners proposed to assign to MAA
two years’ worth of rental income derived from a unit in Burgundy Corporate Tower in
the amount of P6,000,000.00, while the balance of P19,000,000.00 will be paid before
the year 2014. But for MAA, this would lengthen the payment of the obligation to 24
months without any guaranty, contrary to the six-month period that they originally
agreed upon.
Thus, MAA filed a complaint with an application for an  ex parte  issuance of a writ of
attachment over the leviable properties of petitioners. MAA asserted that petitioners
committed fraud in incurring the obligation subject of the complaint which warranted
the grant of preliminary attachment pursuant to Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of
Court. MAA further averred that there was no sufficient security for its claim.

In its Order dated April 17, 2012, the RTC granted MAA’s application, and issued a Writ
of Preliminary Attachment on April 26, 2012 upon the posting of MAA’s bond. The
sheriff then served and implemented the writ against the real properties of petitioners.

Petitioners then filed their Urgent Motion to Quash Writ of Attachment with Damages.
They argued that without notice of hearing, the RTC illegally, irregularly, and
improvidently issued the writ of attachment since MAA was allowed to present   ex
parte  evidence on its allegations in the Urgent Motion for Issuance of Preliminary
Attachment with Damages. Further, MAA failed to establish the existence of any
grounds for attachment under Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.

MAA then filed its Vehement Comment/Opposition to petitioners’ Urgent Motion to

Quash Writ of Attachment with Damages.

RTC denied. Thus, petitioners filed a petition for  certiorari . CA denied the petition
for  certiorari .

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the petition for  certiorari has been rendered moot by the RTC Decision.

RULING:
The petition should be denied for being moot.

In determining the need to resolve the petition, the Court takes judicial notice of its
ruling in G.R. No. 243036, which stemmed from and ultimately resolved with finality
the main action for sum of money and damages filed by MAA against petitioners.

The Court deems it worthy to recall in brief the antecedents of G.R. No. 243036.

Specifically, the RTC rendered its Decision dated July 9, 2015 in the main action for
sum of money and damages in favor of MAA.  It ordered herein petitioners to jointly
and severally pay MAA. The RTC also denied petitioners’ counterclaim for lack of
merit. The RTC ruled that the issue of whether there was a ground under Section 1(d),
Rule 57 of the Rules of Court for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment was
already resolved in the Order dated April 17, 2012 which granted the application for
preliminary attachment.
On August 7, 2015, petitioners elevated the main case through an appeal of the
Decision dated July 9, 2015 to the CA. This was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 105560.

In the Decision dated May 23, 2018, the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 105560 denied the
appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision dated July 9, 2015. As to the propriety of the
issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment, the CA in its Decision dated May 23,
2018 ruled that MAA was able to substantiate its factual allegation of fraud to warrant
the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1 (d),  Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied. Aggrieved, petitioners
filed a petition for review on  certiorari  of the Decision and Resolution of the CA before
the Court and docketed as G.R. No. 243036. However, the petition was denied by the
Court in its Resolution dated March 11, 2019 for lack of reversible error by the CA.

The Court’s Resolution dated March 11, 2019 has since attained finality on June 13,
2019 and an Entry of Judgment issued.

Thus, considering that the Court in G.R. No. 243036 had already settled with finality
the merits of MAA’s claims against petitioners, including the propriety of the issuance
of the writ of preliminary attachment, there will be no practical value in resolving the
present petition.

In fact, the Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 243036 is already   res judicata  on the present
petition.

Res judicata  applies in the concept of “bar by prior judgment” if the following requisites
concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order
must be on the merits; (3) the decision must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between
the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of
action.

All of the elements of the doctrine of  res judicata  are present in this case.

As to the first three requisites, the Resolution dated March 11, 2019 in G.R. No.
243036 was rendered by the Court which had competent jurisdiction to decide on the
appeal of the Decision dated May 23, 2018 and Resolution dated November 14, 2018 of
the CA in CAG.R. CV No. 105560 that affirmed the RTC Decision dated July 9, 2015 in
Civil Case No. 12-282. The Court’s denial of the petition with finality in G.R. No. 243036
is also a judgment on the merits.

As to the fourth requisite, the parties involved in G.R. No. 243036 are the same parties
involved in the present case. Further, while G.R. No. 243036 originated from CA-G.R.
CV No. 105560 which involved an appeal of the RTC Decision dated July 9, 2015, Civil
Case No. 12-282, and while the present petition originated from CA-G.R. SP No. 126282
which involved a petition for  certiorari  of the RTC Order dated July 10, 2012 in Civil
Case No. 12-282, in both cases, petitioners questioned the propriety of the RTC’s
issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment. Apparently, petitioners raised the issue
of the writ of preliminary attachment in G.R. No. 243036 despite the pendency of the
present petition questioning the propriety of the RTC’s issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment in Civil Case No. 12-282.

Thus, considering that the only issue in CA-G.R. SP No. 126282, and consequently, the
present petition, is the propriety of the issuance of the writ of attachment, a
subsequent resolution of that issue already resolved by the Court in G.R. No. 243036 is
conclusive on and bars the resolution of the present petition.