Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARLOS O. YSMAEL v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 189509 2015-11-23	METROPOLITAN BANK v. G & P BUILDERS LEONEN, J.
forbid[s] one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The doctrine of estoppel springs from equitable principles and the equities in the case. It is designed to aid the law in the administration of justice where without its aid injustice might result. It has been applied by this Court wherever and whenever special circumstances of a case so demand.[132]
	GR No. 170515 2010-05-06	MARMOSY TRADING v. CA PEREZ, J.
We disfavor delay in the enforcement of the labor arbiter's decision. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Final and executory judgments can neither be amended nor altered except for correction of clerical errors, even if the purpose is to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or of law.[39] Trial and execution proceedings constitute one whole action or suit such that a case in which execution has been issued is regarded as still pending so that all proceedings in the execution are proceedings in the suit.[40]
	GR No. 180188 2009-03-25	C-E CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NLRC TINGA, J.
We disfavor delay in the enforcement of the labor arbiter's decision. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Final and executory judgments can neither be amended nor altered except for correction of clerical errors, even if the purpose is to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or of law.[16] Trial and execution proceedings constitute one whole action or suit such that a case in which execution has been issued is regarded as still pending so that all proceedings in the execution are proceedings in the suit.[17]
	GR No. 176533 2008-02-11	JEROME SOLCO v. CLAUDINA V. PROVIDO and MARIA TERESA P. VILLARUEL YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Unquestionably, the RTC has a general supervisory control over its process of execution. This power carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution,[35] as well as the power to compel the Villaruels to accept the payment made pursuant to a validly issued writ of execution. As the prevailing party, Solco should not be deprived of the fruits of his rightful victory in the long-drawn legal battle by any ploy of the respondents. Courts must guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts frown upon any attempt to prolong them.