2 kinds of res judicata

Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court discusses the concept of res judicata, to wit:

Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:

xxx
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and

(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

The principle of res judicata lays down two 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, it is also commonly called as "bar by prior judgment" enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47 (b)[1] of the Rules of Civil Procedure 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 or known as "conclusiveness of judgment" in Rule 39, Section 47 (c).[2]

"Bar by prior judgment" arises when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject matter 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. This is "conclusiveness of judgment."[3] Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, the facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action.[4] The identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues.[5]

A case is barred by prior judgment or res judicata when the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment is, final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment; or an order on the merits; (4) there is — between the first and the second actions — identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.[6]

[1] RULE 39, SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - ...

xxx

(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; ...

[2] RULE 39, SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - ...

xxx

(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

[3] Padillo v. Court of Appeals, ATI Phil. 334, 349 (2001), citing Islamic Directorate of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 338 Phil. 956, 980 (1997).

[4] Rizal Surety and Insurance Company v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 1126, 1138 (2000), citing Smith Bell and Company (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 274 Phil. 472, 481-482 (1991).

[5] Tan v. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 675, 681 (2001).

[6] Allied Banking Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 108089, January 10, 1994, 229 SCRA 252, 258.