This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| It is basic that a judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified as soon as it becomes final and executory;[33] "[n]othing is more settled in law."[34] Once a case is decided with finality, "the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest."[35] Accordingly, a final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect "even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be 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."[36] Once a judgment becomes final, the court or tribunal loses jurisdiction, and any modified judgment that it issues, as well as all proceedings taken for this purpose, is null and void.[37] | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable;[40] the judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be 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.[41] While there are recognized exceptions - e.g., the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable[42] - none of these exceptions apply to the present case. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is never a small matter to maintain that litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, even at the risk of occasional errors.[3] A judgment 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 or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.[4] The reason for the rule is that if, on the application of one party, the court could change its judgment to the prejudice of the other, it could thereafter, on application of the latter, again change the judgment and continue this practice indefinitely.[5] The equity of a particular case must yield to the overmastering need of certainty and unalterability of judicial pronouncements.[6] | |||||
|
2006-01-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| As held in Siy v. National Labor Relations Commission and Embang: [28] | |||||