Short answer. No. Under Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court, a final judgment by a court with jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest — not only on the matter directly adjudged, but on any other matter that could have been raised in relation to it.
What the law says
with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest
Rule 39, Section 47 — Effect of judgments or final orders. Read the full provision →
What the law says
litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity
Rule 39, Section 47 — Effect of judgments or final orders. Read the full provision →
What finality actually forecloses
Rule 39, Section 47 makes a final judgment conclusive with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto. Notice the second half: the bar covers not only what the first case decided, but what the claimant could have raised in it and did not. A plaintiff cannot lose, then return with the argument or theory held back the first time, and call it a new case. Litigation over a claim gets one full airing, and the losing side does not get to re-run it piecemeal by presenting the case one theory at a time.
The conditions that make the bar apply
The rule's protection has edges, and they are in its own words. The judgment must come from a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order — a judgment by a court that never had jurisdiction settles nothing. And the conclusiveness runs between the parties and their successors in interest, when litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. So the second case must involve the same parties (or those who took over their interest), the same subject, and the parties suing in the same character. Change any of those genuinely — not cosmetically — and the earlier judgment may not bar the new suit, though it can still bind on issues it actually settled.
Judgments about status and things bind more widely
The section has a special clause for judgments against a specific thing, on the probate of a will, on estate administration, or on the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person. These are conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person — a settlement of the matter itself, not just of a dispute between two litigants. The rule adds one caveat: probate of a will or a grant of letters of administration is only... prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate — that one underlying fact stays open to contrary proof.
What to do when the repeat suit arrives
The bar is a defence, not a self-executing shield — the second case will proceed unless you raise the prior judgment and prove it. Assemble the record of the first case: the decision, the order or entry showing it became final, and enough of the pleadings to demonstrate identity of parties, subject matter and causes. Then compare the new complaint against them, because the plaintiff will usually have re-worded the claim; the question is whether, beneath the new label, it seeks the same thing on facts that were or could have been litigated before. That comparison — complaint against complaint, relief against relief — is precisely what a lawyer needs the two files to make.