This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-04-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the second concept - conclusiveness of judgment - applies. Under the concept of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit.[41] Stated differently, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different cause of action.[42] This second branch of the principle of res judicata bars the re-litigation of particular facts or issues in another litigation between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.[43] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As a final word, it needs no elucidation that the solemn and deliberate sentence of the law, pronounced by its appointed organs, should be regarded as a final and conclusive determination of the question litigated, and should forever set the controversy at rest. Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite time fixed by law. For, after all, the very object for which courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies. [45] | |||||