G.R. No. 121182 - Esperas vs. Court of Appeals

On August 30, 1989, the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, Branch 8, rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 7623 in favor of petitioner Victorio Esperas and dismissed the complaint of private respondents, the heirs of Ponciano Aldas (represented by Anastacio Magtabog and Josefina Magtabog).
The trial court also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the private respondents.

Private respondents filed their notice of appeal, which was perfected on September 28, 1989.
On May 28, 1990, petitioner filed a motion before the trial court to dismiss the appeal for lack of prosecution over an unreasonable period.
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on June 15, 1990.

After the trial court’s dismissal, private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 22695, challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal.
On October 8, 1990, the Special Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals nullified the trial court’s orders (from June 15, 1990 and August 8, 1990), holding that the motion to dismiss should have been filed directly with the Court of Appeals.

In response to the Special Eighth Division’s ruling, petitioner refiled his motion to dismiss the appeal with the Court of Appeals, using the same docket number, CA G.R. SP No. 22695.
On November 27, 1990, the appellate court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal.
Private respondents opposed the motion and subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, both of which were denied by the appellate court.
Later developments led to private respondents being required, on November 25, 1992, to submit copies of their briefs in CA-G.R. CV No. 29581, which was identified as essentially involving the same case as CA-G.R. SP No. 22695.

Petitioner argued that CA-G.R. CV No. 29581, now pending before the Second Division of the Court of Appeals, pertained to the same factual and legal issues as CA-G.R. SP No. 22695, which had already been finally adjudicated.
On May 13, 1994, the Second Division of the Court of Appeals promulgated resolutions denying petitioner’s prayer for the dismissal of the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 29581 and also denying the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner contended that the Second Division exceeded its jurisdiction by re-litigating a matter already settled by a final decision of another division of the same appellate court.

Whether the Second Division of the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by taking cognizance of and proceeding with an appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 29581) that had been effectively terminated by a final decision of the Special Eighth Division (CA-G.R. SP No. 22695).
Whether the proceedings of the Second Division, which allowed re-litigation of matters already finally adjudicated, violated the principle of res judicata.
Whether there exists an identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the appeal before the Second Division and the previously adjudicated special civil action.