G.R. No. L-17938 - Tolentino vs. Ongsiako

The plaintiff-appellant, Esperidion Tolentino, initiated the case by filing a complaint on May 20, 1959.
He sought enforcement of a dissenting opinion rendered in the earlier case “Severo Domingo, et al. vs. Santos, Ongsiako, et al.” (G.R. No. 32776), whose decision was promulgated on December 4, 1930, and printed in Volume 55 of the Philippine Reports (starting at page 361).
The records of the said case were lost or destroyed during the war, and therefore only the printed report remains.

Tolentino claimed to be the successor-in-interest of the late Severo Domingo, asserting that Domingo had not received a copy of the decision due to improper service.
It was alleged that the failure to furnish Domingo a copy of the decision constituted a denial of due process of law.
Tolentino contended that the majority decision in the earlier case was erroneous and unjust, and he argued that the dissenting opinion represented the correct legal view, thereby meriting enforcement.
Additionally, he sought to invoke, on equitable grounds, the ancient writ of error coram nobis as an alternative remedy.

At the lower court (Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija), the case was dismissed on a motion filed by one of the several defendants due to the apparent lack of a cause of action.
The dismissal was upheld because the appellant’s client’s claim rested on an issue that had been conclusively adjudicated and was protected by the doctrine of res judicata.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the dismissal order.

The printed decision indicated that Severo Domingo was represented by Atty. Ramon Diokno.
In accordance with legal practice (Sec. 250, Act 190, and related rules), the service of the decision is rendered upon the counsel, not directly upon the client.
The presumption was that the clerk of the Supreme Court performed his duty properly in serving the decision to the counsel.
The appellant's argument of due process violation, based on the alleged failure in service, was undermined by the established presumption of proper service through the attending counsel.

Whether the alleged failure to personally serve a copy of the printed decision upon the late Severo Domingo deprived him of due process under the law.
Whether service upon Domingo’s counsel (Atty. Ramon Diokno) satisfies the requirement of due process.

Whether a dissenting opinion, which does not constitute a binding or adjudicatory decision, can be enforced as a matter of law.
The implications of attempting to enforce an opinion that neither awards rights nor imposes obligations.

Whether the ancient common law writ of error coram nobis is applicable in a case where the judgment in question has already been affirmed by appeal.
Whether injunctive relief can be granted on the grounds of reopening issues already adjudicated and final in nature.

Whether the issue brought before the court, being already adjudicated and unchallenged for over 30 years, falls within the ambit of res judicata, thus barring further re-litigation.