This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The decisive factor in this case is the RTC-Branch 2 Decision dated February 24, 2006 in Criminal Case Nos. 8230, 8465, 8466, 8467, 8468, 8469 & 8470. This was the decision that overturned petitioner Edna's previous conviction for estafa and adjudged her only to be civilly liable to the respondent. Said RTC decision is already final and executory,[20] and this was not refuted by the petitioners. The Court has consistently ruled that "once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case regardless of any claim that it is erroneous. Having been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction acting within its authority, the judgment may no longer be altered even at the risk of occasional legal infirmities or errors it may contain."[21] Thus, said RTC decision bars a rehash, not only of the issues raised therein but also of other issues that might have been raised, and this includes the existence of the promissory note upon which petitioner Edna's exoneration rested. As a matter of fact, the RTC decision embodied petitioner Edna's own admission that she is indebted to the respondent. The issue of whether petitioner Edna's liability under the note was, from the very beginning, civil and not criminal in nature has no relevance in this case as the only issue to be resolved is whether the mortgage contracts were executed under duress. Any other discussion pertinent to the RTC decision will transgress the principle of immutability of a final judgment.[22] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The instant Petition offers no cogent reason that would sway this Court to make a radical departure from its hesitancy to reopen a case that has attained finality. The issues raised in the main by the petitioners are but the same issues that were already passed upon by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 31 January 2007. To reopen this case would mean a crass defiance of our basic procedural rules. Consequently, it will run contrary to the dictates of due process, as it would deprive PCIB from executing the rights vested upon it after the case has been adjudged with finality. The effective and efficient administration of justice requires that once a judgment has become final, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict by subsequent suits on the same issues filed by the same parties.[60] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right, and the issuance of a Writ of Execution becomes a ministerial duty of the court.[19] A decision that has attained finality becomes the law of the case regardless of any claim that it is erroneous. The writ of execution must therefore conform to the judgment to be executed and adhere strictly to the very essential particulars.[20] | |||||
|
2007-06-22 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Well-within its jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals, in its decision of August 28, 2003, already ruled that the issue of the trial court's authority to hear and decide the instant case has already been settled in the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 26, 1989 (which has become final and executory on August 20, 1989 as per entry of judgment dated October 10, 1989).[28] We find no reason to disturb this ruling. Courts are duty-bound to put an end to controversies. The system of judicial review should not be misused and abused to evade the operation of a final and executory judgment.[29] The appellate court's decision becomes the law of the case which must be adhered to by the parties by reason of policy.[30] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that when a court of competent jurisdiction has tried and decided a right or fact, so long as the decision remains unreversed, it is conclusive on the parties and those in privity with them.[11] More so where the Supreme Court has already decided the issue since the Court is the final arbiter of all justiciable controversies properly brought before it.[12] As held in Buaya v. Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc.:[13] | |||||
|
2001-08-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Too elementary is the rule that a decision once final is no longer susceptible to amendment or alteration except to correct errors which are clerical in nature,[8] to clarify any ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion,[9] or to rectify a travesty of justice brought about by a moro-moro or mock trial.[10] A final decision is the law of the case and is immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of error or incorrectness.[11] | |||||
|
2001-06-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We grant the petition. Final and executory decisions, more so with those already executed, may no longer be amended except only to correct errors which are clerical in nature. They become the law of the case and are immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of error or incorrectness.[14] Amendments or alterations which substantially affect such judgments as well as the entire proceedings held for that purpose are null and void for lack of jurisdiction.[15] The reason lies in the fact that public policy dictates that litigations must be terminated at some definite time and that the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party.[16] | |||||