Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PANFILO D. BONGCAC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 198531 2015-09-28	ACAMPADO v. SPS. LOURDES R. COSMILLA AND FELIMON COSMILLA PEREZ, J.
Considering that the running of the period towards the finality of the judgment was not stopped, the RTC Decision dated 31 March 2005 became final and executory. Every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable.[39] For just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the life of the law.[40] To frustrate it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts. It is in the interest of justice that we should write finis to this litigation.[41] Consequently, we find no reversible error when the RTC denied respondents' motion for reconsideration.
	GR Nos. 183152-54 2015-01-21	REYNALDO H. JAYLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, C.J.
In view thereof, this Court no longer has the power to conduct a review of the findings and conclusions in the Decision of the Sandiganbayan. The Decision is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment, or reversal.[63] Thus, there is no need to pass upon the issues raised by petitioners assailing it.
	AM No. MTJ-13-1834 2013-10-02	JESUS D. CARBAJOSA v. JUDGE HANNIBAL R. PATRICIO REYES, J.
Any delay in the full execution of a final and executory decision is repugnant to the ideal administration of justice. Hence the rule that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The enforcement of such judgment should not be hampered or evaded; for the immediate enforcement of the parties' rights, confirmed by final judgment, is a major component of the ideal administration of justice.[23] Our penal laws and rules of procedure, in particular, enjoin that when the judgment of conviction is already final and executory its execution is ministerial.[24]
	GR No. 191661 2013-08-13	CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI v. EMERITA B. ODEÑA SERENO, C.J.
We have often ruled that when the dispositive portion of a judgment is clear and unequivocal, it must be executed strictly according to its tenor.[91] A definitive judgment is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal. Upon finality of the judgment, the Court loses its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter it.[92] The 2007 Decision had been clear and unambiguous to both parties; otherwise, the parties would have filed a motion for its clarification, but neither party did in this case. Thus, the CSC's act of increasing the amount of benefits awarded to respondent was improper. It did not have any authority to modify, let alone increase the said award which has already been adjudged with finality.
	GR Nos. 180880-81 2012-09-18	KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD v. PIONEER INSURANCE MENDOZA, J.
Verily, "under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision 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 and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land."[28] This rule notwithstanding, the Court En Banc had re-opened and accepted several cases for review and reevaluation for special and compelling reasons. Among these cases were Manotok IV v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque,[29] Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[30] League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,[31] and Navarro v. Ermita.[32]
	GR No. 156358 2011-08-17	ANGELINA PAHILA-GARRIDO v. ELIZA M. TORTOGO BERSAMIN, J.
Under the circumstances, the principle of immutability of a final judgment must now be absolutely and unconditionally applied against the respondents. They could not anymore be permitted to interminably forestall the execution of the judgment through their interposition of new petitions or pleadings.[40] Even as their right to initiate an action in court ought to be fully respected, their commencing SCA Case No. 01-11522 in the hope of securing a favorable ruling despite their case having been already fully and finally adjudicated should not be tolerated. Their move should not frustrate the enforcement of the judgment, the fruit and the end of the suit itself. Their right as the losing parties to appeal within the prescribed period could not defeat the correlative right of the winning party to enjoy at last the finality of the resolution of her case through execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which would be the life of the law.[41] To frustrate the winning party's right through dilatory schemes is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts, which thereby increases the costs of litigation. The interest of justice undeniably demanded that we should immediately write finis to the litigation, for all courts are by oath bound to guard against any scheme calculated to bring about the frustration of the winning party's right, and to stop any attempt to prolong controversies already resolved with finality.[42]
	GR No. 168251 2011-07-27	JESUS M. MONTEMAYOR v. VICENTE D. MILLORA DEL CASTILLO, J.
To stress, the October 27, 1999 Decision of the RTC has already attained finality. "Such definitive judgment is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal. Upon finality of the judgment, the Court loses its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. Except for correction of clerical errors or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, or where the judgment is void, the judgment can neither be amended nor altered after it has become final and executory. This is the principle of immutability of final judgment." [32]
	GR No. 181970 2010-08-03	BERNARDO DE LEON v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY SUBSTITUTED BY CITY OF PARAÑAQUE PERALTA, J.
As a final note, it bears to point out that this case has been dragging for more than 15 years and the execution of this Court's judgment in PEA v. CA has been delayed for almost ten years now simply because De Leon filed a frivolous appeal against the RTC's order of execution based on arguments that cannot hold water. As a consequence, PEA is prevented from enjoying the fruits of the final judgment in its favor. The Court agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General in its contention that every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the "life of the law."[36] To frustrate it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts.[37] It is in the interest of justice that this Court should write finis to this litigation.
	GR No. 176707 2010-02-17	ARLIN B. OBIASCA v. JEANE O. BASALLOTE CORONA, J.
In this case, petitioner did not file a petition for reconsideration of the CSC resolution dated November 29, 2005 before filing a petition for review in the CA. Such fatal procedural lapse on petitioner's part allowed the CSC resolution dated November 29, 2005 to become final and executory.[17] Hence, for all intents and purposes, the CSC resolution dated November 29, 2005 has become immutable and can no longer be amended or modified.[18] A final and definitive judgment can no longer be changed, revised, amended or reversed.[19] Thus, in praying for the reversal of the assailed Court of Appeals decision which affirmed the final and executory CSC resolution dated November 29, 2005, petitioner would want the Court to reverse a final and executory judgment and disregard the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.