Sep 8, 2020

RULE 129 EVIDENCE Baguio v. Vda de Jalagat, GR L-28100, 29 November 1971

 Baguio v. Vda de Jalagat, GR L-28100, 29 November 1971

Doctrine: Courts may take judicial notice of the previous cases decided with finality of a judgment in a case previously pending and decided by it.

FACTS: Herein petitioner Gabriel Baguio filed for the quieting of title to real property against Teofila Jalagat and her minor children with the Court of First Instance. The Jalagats filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the present complaint is barred by a previous judgment rendered by the same court.

The previous case involved practically the same property, the same cause of action, and the same parties, with Melecio Jalagat (Teofila’s deceased husband and predecessor in interest) as the defendant. The previous case was terminated with the court dismissing Baguio’s complaint. Acting on the motion and taking judicial notice of its previous judgment, the lower court dismissed the present complaint on the ground of res judicata. Consequently, Baguio appealed the order of dismissal.

He claimed that for the ground of res judicatato suffice as a basis for dismissal it must be apparent on the face of the complaint. Hence this case.

ISSUE: WHETHER A LOWER COURT MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF SUCH PREVIOUS CASE DECIDED BY HIM RESULTING IN THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON?

HELD: YES. Courts may take judicial notice of the previous cases decided with finality of a judgment in a case previously pending and decided by it. The law would lend itself to a well-deserved reproach if the Rules of Court would sanction such a proceeding distinguished by nothing but its futility.

It ought to be clear even to appellant that under the circumstances, the lower court certainly could take judicial notice of the finality of a judgment in a case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it. That was all that was done by the lower court in decreeing the dismissal. Certainly such an order is not contrary to law.

In addition, appellant undoubtedly had recourse to a remedy which under the law then in force could be availed of. It would have served the cause of justice better, not to mention the avoidance of needless expense on his part and the vexation to which appellees were subjected if he did reflect a little more on the matter.

No comments:

Post a Comment