MENDIOLA vs CA FACTS:
1987, Ms. Norma S. Nora convinced Rogelio Mendiola to enter into a joint venture with her for the exort of rawns. !s roosed "# Ms. Nora, the# were to secure financing from rivate resondent $hiliine National National %an&. 'he credit line was to "e secured "# collaterals consisting consisting of real estate roerties of the etitioner, articularl# two ()* arcels of land, situated in Mari&ina.
1988, Mendiola signed a Secial $ower of !ttorne# authori+ing Ms. Norma S. Nora to mortgage his aforementioned roerties to $N% in order to secure the o"ligations of the joint venture with the said "an& of u to Million $esos.
'he lanned joint venture venture "ecame a failure even "efore "efore it could ta&e off the ground. ground. %ut, in the meantime, Ms. Norma S. Nora, on the strength of the secial ower of attorne# issued in her favor, o"tained loans from $N% in the amount of $8,1-1,-./) for the account of etitioner and secured "# the arcels of land hereina"ove descri"ed.
1988, Mendiola "elatedl# revo&ed the secial ower of attorne# in favor of Ms. Nora and re0uested $N% to release his roerties from mortgage. $etitioner was notified that $N% had initiated forecloseroceedings forecloseroceedings against the roerties of the etitioner.
1989, Mendiola filed injunction case against $N%. $N moved to dismiss.
R'2 R3456 o
ranted $N%s motion to dismiss "ecause the comlaint does not state a sufficient cause of action, it follows therefore that the ra#er, for issuance of the writ of reliminar# injunction has no leg to stand on.
2! dismissed the aeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in dismissing the petition? Whether or not res judicata has already set in the case? HELD:
No. Yes. RATIO:
'he instant etition has now "ecome moot and academic, "ecause the first case, which is an alication for injunction filed "# herein etitioner Regional 'rial 2ourt, $asig 2it# against rivate resondent $N% to revent the latter from foreclosing his real roerties, and which was
then ending aeal "efore the court a quo at the time the second action was filed, has now "een finall# dismissed "# the resondent 2ourt of !eals.
2onse0uentl#, the instant etition which ra#s for the declaration of nullit# of the auction sale "# $N% of rivate resondents roerties "ecomes dismissi"le under the rincile of res judicata.
'here is :"ar "# former judgment: when, "etween the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case where such judgment is invo&ed, there is identit# of arties, su"ject matter and cause of action. ;hen the three identities are resent, the judgment on the merits rendered in the first constitutes an a"solute "ar to su"se0uent action.
