This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently held that "a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction."[43] The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if adverse.[44] If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter challenge the court's jurisdiction in the same case. To rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the Court.[45] | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[4] | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| John Lu Ym and Ludo & Luym Development Corporation (LLDC), meanwhile, filed with leave a Motion[5] for the Issuance of an Entry of Judgment of February 2, 2010, which merited an Opposition from David Lu. | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is argued that the assailed Resolutions in the present cases have already become final,[12] since a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only upon express leave first obtained;[13] and that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable, however unjust the result of error may appear. | |||||