Professional Documents
Culture Documents
121 Bachrach v. CA
121 Bachrach v. CA
FACTS: Bachrach Corporation entered into two lease contracts with the Philippine government covering 2 areas. Philippine Ports
Authority (PPA) issued a Memorandum increasing the rental rates of Bachrach who refused to pay. Thus, PPA initiated unlawful
detainer proceedings (hereinafter ejectment case) before the MeTC against Bachrach for non-payment of rent. MeTC ordered the
eviction of Bachrach from the leased premises. RTC affirmed in toto. Bachrach filed a petition for review with the CA, which affirmed
RTC’s decision. CA denied Bachrach’s MR. CA’s decision in the ejectment suit became final and executory
Meanwhile, while the MR was yet pending with the CA, Bachrach filed a case for specific performance (hereinafter specific
performance case) against PPA for refusing to honor a compromise agreement said to have been perfected between Bachrach and
PPA. Bachrach filed an application in the specific performance case for the issuance of a TRO and/or a writ of preliminary injunction
to enjoin the MeTC from issuing the writ of execution/garnishment. Trial court granted Bachrach’s application. MR of PPA was
denied. Thus, PPA filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, which rendered the assailed decision nullifying and
setting aside the orders of the RTC and ordering the latter to dismiss the specific performance case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the specific performance case should be held barred by the unlawful detainer case on the ground of res
judicata.
RULING: NO. There are four (4) essential conditions which must concur in order that res judicata may effectively apply, viz: (1) The
judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment or order on the merits, and (4) there must be
between the first and second action identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action."
The first three elements of res judicata are here extant; it is the final condition requiring an identity of parties, of subject matter and
of causes of action, particularly the last two, i.e., subject matter and cause of action, that presents a problem.
A cause of action, broadly defined, is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. The subject matter,
on the other hand, is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and
it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under dispute. In a breach of contract, the contract violated is the subject matter
while the breach thereof by the obligor is the cause of action. The ultimate test in ascertaining the identity of causes of action is said
to be to look into whether or not the same evidence fully supports and establishes both the present cause of action and the former
cause of action. In the affirmative, the former judgment would be a bar; if otherwise, then that prior judgment would not serve as
such a bar to the second.
The evidence needed to establish the cause of action in the unlawful detainer case would be the lease contract and the violation of
that lease by Bachrach. In the specific performance case, what would be consequential is evidence of the alleged compromise
agreement and its breach by PPA.