[3] SAME EVIDENCE TEST RULE

The Same Evidence Test Rule states that when the same evidence support and establish
both the present and the former causes of action, there is likely an identity of causes of
action. Therefore, if a person has been charged with an offense, he cannot be again charged
with the same or identical offense through the latter be lesser or greater than the former.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
In the case of Riviera Golf Club, Inc. v. CCA Holdings, B.V., the pleadings and record of
the present case show that there is a glaring similarity in the documentary evidence
submitted to prove the claims under the two complaints. The pieces of evidence
both in the collection of unpaid management and royalty fees, and the recovery of
damages for the expected business profits aim at establishing the breach of the
Management and Royalty Agreements. Based on the allegations in the two
complaints, the facts that are necessary to support the second complaint would have
been sufficient to allow CCA Holdings to recover in the first complaint. The
similarity in the pieces of evidence in these two cases therefore strongly suggests
the identity of their causes of action. [Riviera Golf Club, Inc. v. CCA Holdings, B.V., G.R.
No. 173783, June 17, 2015]
In the case of Agustin v. Spouses Delos Santos, the Supreme Court ruled that the
petitioner's reliance on the applicability of the principle of res judicata is still for
naught, given that the two cases for ejectment do not share the same subject matter.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a judgment in a previous case of ejectment
could not serve as a bar to a subsequent one if the latter is predicated on a new
factual and juridical situation. As a consequence, even in cases where the dismissal
of a suit brought for the ejectment of the lessee for non-payment of rentals for a
given period becomes final and executory, the lessor is still not precluded from
making a new demand upon the tenant to vacate should the latter again fail to pay
the rents due or should another ground for ejectment arise, in which case such
subsequent demand and refusal of the tenant to vacate shall constitute a new cause
of action. [Agustin v. Spouses Delos Santos, G.R. No. 168139, January 20, 2009]