Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF LATE FLOR TUNGPALAN v. CA AND SPS. NAVARRO R. EUSTAQUIO AND ARABELLA K. EUSTAQUIO AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 181949 2014-04-23	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO BIHAG v. HEIRS OF NICASIO BATHAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
But while we agree with petitioners that their Notice of Appeal was erroneously denied by the RTC, we are nevertheless constrained to deny the instant Petition as the January 5, 2007 Order, denying petitioners' Notice of Appeal, has attained finality. It is a settled rule that a decision or order becomes final and executory if the aggrieved party fails to appeal or move for a reconsideration within 15 days from his receipt of the court's decision or order disposing of the action or proceeding.[54] Once it becomes final and executory, the decision or order may no longer be amended or modified, not even by an appellate court.[55]
	GR No. 192716 2012-06-13	ELOISA MERCHANDISING v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, despite the trial court's leniency and admonition, petitioners continued to exhibit laxity and inattention in attending to their case. Assuming domestic problems had beset petitioners' counsel in the interregnum, with greater reason should he make proper coordination with the trial court to ensure his availability on the date to be chosen by the trial court for the long-delayed conduct of a pre-trial conference. Petitioners themselves did nothing to get the case moving for nine months and set the case anew for pre-trial even as BDO was already seeking their judicial ejectment with the implementation of the writ of possession issued by Branch 143. Such circumstance also belies their pretense that the parties were then still negotiating for a settlement. We have held that a party cannot blame his counsel when he himself was guilty of neglect; and that the laws aid the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Vigilantibus sed non dormientibus jura subveniunt.[29]
	GR NO. 167131 2006-09-12	SPS. NAPOLEON FLORES v. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY CALLEJO, SR., J.
After the lapse of the fifteen-day period, the judgment or final order becomes final and executory and is beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further amend or reverse.[28] The court loses jurisdiction over the case except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.[29]
	GR NO. 124512 2006-06-27	MA. ROSARIO SUAREZ v. JUDGE MARTIN S. VILLARAMA TINGA, J.
At the outset, it bears stressing that the trial court's 15 February 1996 order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute is a final order. It operates as a judgment on the merits.[9] Indeed, this is an express provision in Section 3,[10] Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. The same characterization applies to the 11 April 1996 order denying the motion for reconsideration. It is axiomatic that the remedy against such final order is appeal and not certiorari.[11]