This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2001-04-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The judgment of either court will constitute a bar to the other. It has been held that where a litigant sues the same party against whom the same action or actions, for the alleged violation of the same right, and the enforcement of the same relief are still pending, the defense of litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the other; and a final judgment in one would constitute res judicata and thus, would cause the dismissal of the rest.[21] "Under the principle of res judicata, the Court and the parties are bound by such final decision, otherwise, there will be no end to litigation. It is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by the parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated, and an individual should not be vexed twice for the same cause."[22] WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. | |||||
|
2001-03-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The judgment in Civil Case No. Q-26392 has become final and executory. What Amor and Victoria should have done was to either timely appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or to seasonably file a "petition for relief from judgment" under Rule 38.[39] A party who fails to acquire complete relief from a decision of a court has various remedies to correct it. A party may move for a correction or clarification of judgment, or even seek its modification through ordinary appeal.[40] This they did not do. There must, therefore, be an end to litigation.[41] | |||||
|
2000-11-23 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Lingayen, Pangasinan in Civil Case No. 16890 touched on matters already decided. There must be an end to litigation.[39] The issue of whether ejectment was proper was fully and fairly adjudicated in Civil Case No. 658. | |||||