This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-10-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Fourth, the lower court has no jurisdiction to interpret, much less reverse, this Court's final and executory judgment. We enunciated this principle as early as 1922 in Shioji v. Harvey .[8] "The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to its mandate. They cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution, or give any other or further relief, or review it upon any matter decided on appeal for error apparent, or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded."[9] An order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.[10] | |||||
|
2005-12-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Neither are we convinced that the motu proprio issuance of the 4 January 2005 Order, without the benefit of notice or hearing, sufficiently evinces bias on the part of Hon. Gingoyon. The motu proprio amendment by a court of an erroneous order previously issued may be sanctioned depending on the circumstances, in line with the long-recognized principle that every court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.[76] Section 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court further recognizes the inherent power of courts "to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice,"[77] a power which Hon. Gingoyon noted in his 10 January 2005 Omnibus Order.[78] This inherent power includes the right of the court to reverse itself, especially when in its honest opinion it has committed an error or mistake in judgment, and that to adhere to its decision will cause injustice to a party litigant.[79] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Clearly, the conduct of the relocation survey was not occasioned at the instigation of the prevailing party (the Alcantaras), but upon lawful order by the RTC. Moreover, the procedure was consented to by all of the parties and their lawyers. The relocation survey was ordered for the purpose of conclusively ascertaining a factual issue, i.e., the exact location of the structure belonging to Espinosa in relation to the lot of the Alcantaras. This is a proper question for the RTC to have inquired into, and well within its competence as it is a trier of facts. Every court has the inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.[24] | |||||