Practice question
A contract case between two parties ends in a final merits judgment. Afterward, a genuinely separate contractual obligation becomes due and is allegedly breached for the first time. The later claim could not have arisen or been litigated in the first case. The defendant asserts that the same contract and party names alone necessarily establish claim preclusion. Which is correct?
- The court must compare the actual causes; a genuinely new later breach is not automatically the identical cause adjudicated earlier.
- The same contract bars every future cause forever.
- Every later breach existed legally before it occurred.
- The first judgment makes future obligations disappear.
- Party identity alone establishes all res judicata requisites.
Legal references
- https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2019-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf — Supreme Court official2019 Rules, Rule39§§47–48 and Rules57–61.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/aug2025/gr_243317_2025.html — Aguila v Perfect Dimension, GR243317, August4 2025, main decision.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.