This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To be sure, the Court is not precluded from rectifying errors of judgment if blind and stubborn adherence to the doctrine of immutability [30] would involve the sacrifice of justice for technicality. [31] The Court has previously provided for exceptions to the rule on immutability of final judgments, as follows: (1) the correction of clerical errors; [32] (2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; [33] (3) void judgments; [34] and (4) supervening events. [35] As exceptions to the general rule, their application to instances wherein a review of a final and executory decision is called are to be strictly construed. [36] No convincing argument or extraordinary circumstance has been raised to justify and support the application of any of these exceptions to warrant a reversal of the Court's First Decision. Reversing previous, final, and executory decisions are to be done only under severely limited circumstances. Although new and unforeseen circumstances may arise in the future to justify a review of an established legal principle in a separate and distinct case, the extension of a principle must be dealt with exceptionally and cautiously. | |||||
|
2009-10-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| AT ALL EVENTS, this Court resolves to exercise its mandate as a court of justice and equity,[24] taking into account that more than a decade has passed since the case was filed before the SAC, and thus disposes of the lone substantive issue raised - whether the SAC erred in using P300.00 as the GSP in 1992. | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
|||||
| In the exercise of our mandate as a court of justice and equity,[40] we rule in favor of respondent despite the absence of claim folders pro hac vice. If respondent is deprived of the just compensation due him mainly because of the absence of claim folders which were not prepared by the DAR even after it had already taken the subject property and issued the EPs in favor of the FBs, we would be abetting the perpetration of a grave injustice on the respondent. | |||||