This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-10-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Consistent with the foregoing precepts, the Court has then reconsidered even decisions that have attained finality, finding it more appropriate to lift entries of judgments already made in these cases. In Navarro v. Executive Secretary,[67] we reiterated the pronouncement in De Guzman that the power to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared final. The Court then recalled in Navarro an entry of judgment after it had determined the validity and constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9355, explaining that: Verily, the Court had, on several occasions, sanctioned the recall of entries of judgment in light of attendant extraordinary circumstances. The power to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had already declared final. In this case, the compelling concern is not only to afford the movants-intervenors the right to be heard since they would be adversely affected by the judgment in this case despite not being original parties thereto, but also to arrive at the correct interpretation of the provisions of the [Local Government Code (LGC)] with respect to the creation of local government units. x x x.[68] (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Verily, "under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land."[28] This rule notwithstanding, the Court En Banc had re-opened and accepted several cases for review and reevaluation for special and compelling reasons. Among these cases were Manotok IV v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque,[29] Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[30] League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,[31] and Navarro v. Ermita.[32] | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In these cases, the exception to the doctrine of immutability of judgment was applied in order to serve substantial justice.[33] The application was in line with its power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it. "The power to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had already declared final."[34] | |||||
|
2012-04-24 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Anent locus standi, "the rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.[18] The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."[19] In public suits, the plaintiff, representing the general public, asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action. The plaintiff may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person, and could be suing as a "stranger," or as a "citizen" or "taxpayer."[20] Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.[21] Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.[22] | |||||