This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-09-24 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that a judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes.[27] True, this rule admits of certain exceptions. One of these exceptions is whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.[28] This, however, is not the case here. In the present case, the Ombudsman issued his Resolution prior to the finality of the trial court's decision. The Ombudsman issued his Resolution on 22 January 1997 while the trial court's decision became final and executory on 14 June 1997. Therefore, the resolution of the Ombudsman is not a supervening event to warrant the stay of the execution of the decision of the trial court. | |||||
|
2000-11-23 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| On April 27, 1999, RUDECON filed comment to the petition praying for its outright dismissal. RUDECON further alleged that the petitioner and his counsel were guilty of forum shopping since another petition, CA-G.R SP No. 49648 (a petition for certiorari filed by SINGSON through his lawyer, ATTORNEY CAMACHO of the decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326 and the orders issued by it which affirmed the order of ejectment issued by the MTC against VELUZ) was already pending in the Court of Appeals.[15] Subsequently, on April 29,1999, RUDECON filed a "MANIFESTATION AND MOTION"[16] with "MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITIONER AND HIS COUNSEL SHOULD NOT BE CITED FOR CONTEMPT AND BE PENALIZED FOR FORUM-SHOPPING" (CA-G.R. SP No. 51492)[17] and "SECOND MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITIONER AND HIS COUNSEL SHOULD NOT BE CITED FOR CONTEMPT AND BE PENALIZED FOR FORUM-SHOPPING" (CA-G.R. SP No. 49648)[18]. Briefly, the motions alleged that ATTORNEY CAMACHO failed to inform the Court of Appeals that he filed two Petitions for Certiorari raising substantially the same facts, issues and relief sought by substantially the same parties docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 49648 in favor of his client SINGSON, and CA-G.R. SP No. 51492 in favor of his other client VELUZ in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94 dated April 1, 1994 and Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure proscribing forum-shopping. | |||||