This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-06-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Lastly, we uphold the CA's promulgation of the second amended decision. Verily, all courts of law have the unquestioned power to alter, modify, or set aside their decisions before they become final and unalterable.[27] A judgment that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may thereafter no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.[28] The reason for the rule of immutability is that if, on the application of one party, the court could change its judgment to the prejudice of the other, the court could thereafter, on application of the latter, again change the judgment and continue this practice indefinitely. [29] The equity of a particular case must yield to the overmastering need of certainty and unalterability of judicial pronouncements.[30] The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and, thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Indeed, controversies cannot drag on indefinitely; the rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time.[31] As such, the doctrine of immutability is not a mere technicality to be easily brushed aside, but a matter of public policy as well as a time-honored principle of procedural law. | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ of certiorari cannot be legally used for any other purpose.[53] At most, the petition pertains to an error of judgment, and not of jurisdiction, for clearly under Section 5 of Rule 69, the question of whether a party's interest shall be prejudiced by the division of the real property is left to the determination and discretion of the Commissioners. | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The failure to pay on the date stipulated was clearly a violation of the Agreement. Within thirty days from receipt of the judicial Order approving it on December 20, 1997 payment should have been made, but was not. Thus, nonfulfillment of the terms of the compromise justified execution.[24] It is the height of absurdity for petitioner to attribute to a fortuitous event its delayed payment. Petitioner's explanation is clearly "a gratuitous assertion that borders on callousness."[25] The Christmas season cannot be cited as an act of God that would excuse a delay in the processing of claims by a government entity that is subject to routine accounting and auditing rules. | |||||