G.R. No. 76965 - Tan vs. Nitafan

Bitter rivalry in the movie theater industry in Cagayan de Oro culminated in the killing of Florentino Lim, a prominent local citizen.
On 25 August 1973, Florentino Lim was fatally shot in his office, sparking both criminal and civil proceedings.

A joint investigation by the Constabulary, NBI, and the police led to the filing of criminal charges before Military Commission No. 1.
Several accused, including the Tan brothers (Luis, William, Joaquin, Vicente) and others, were charged with murder and illegal possession of a firearm.
Eventually, Luis Tan and five others were convicted for murder, while the remaining accused were acquitted; some accused died prior to or during the proceedings.

On 11 February 1983, private respondent Rosita B. Lim, representing her minor children, filed a civil action for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 52.
The civil case sought indemnity for damages arising from the death of Florentino Lim—a consequence of the noted rivalry and ensuing tragic event.

Petitioners (the Tan brothers) filed a motion to dismiss the civil action, alleging that the claim had already prescribed based on elapsed time.
Respondent Judge David G. Nitafan denied the motion, holding that the prescriptive period was coterminous with the underlying crime (murder) which carries a twenty (20) year limitation period.
Subsequent filings, including an amended answer incorporating the prescription plea and related motions (including Velez’s separate motion, subsequent motions for reconsideration, and petitions for certiorari), reiterated the prescription argument.

In G.R. No. 69418 and G.R. No. 67029, the Court had already addressed and resolved the issue of prescription and related matters.
The denial of the prescription defense in earlier proceedings became binding as part of the “law of the case,” precluding its re-litigation.
Petitioners, having joined earlier motions and defenses that were previously dismissed, were precluded from raising the same issues again.

The case also involved concerns regarding double jeopardy and the separation of criminal and civil liabilities, particularly since some petitioners had been acquitted by the military tribunal.
Concurring opinions emphasized that the denial of the motion to dismiss was properly based on settled legal principles and that prescription had been adequately addressed in prior decisions.

Whether the civil action for damages filed against the petitioners had prescribed based on the time elapsed since the killing of Florentino Lim.
Whether the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss—grounded on prescription—represented a grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the doctrine of res judicata and the "law of the case" precludes the petitioners from reasserting the prescription defense despite its prior resolution in G.R. Nos. 69418 and 67029.
Whether the grounds for dismissal, specifically prescription and the alleged lack of cause of action, were properly pleaded in the complaint as required by procedural rules.