This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Aliviado v. Procter and Gamble Phils., Inc.[8] this Court has extensively discussed the finality of a judgment, thus:It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Aliviado v. Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc.[80] this court explained that: [i]t is immaterial that the Entry of Judgment was made without the Court having first resolved P&G's second motion for reconsideration. This is because the issuance of the entry of judgment is reckoned from the time the parties received a copy of the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration. The filing by P&G of several pleadings after receipt of the resolution denying its first motion for reconsideration does not in any way bar the finality or entry of judgment. Besides, to reckon the finality of a judgment from receipt of the denial of the second motion for reconsideration would be absurd. First, the Rules of Court and the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court prohibit the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. Second, some crafty litigants may resort to filing prohibited pleadings just to delay entry of judgment.[81] (Underscoring in the original, emphasis supplied) | |||||