This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-06-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| This fundamental principle in part affirms our recognition of instances when disputes are inadequately presented before the courts and addresses situations when parties fail to unravel what they truly desire and thus fail to set forth all the claims which they want the courts to resolve. It is only when judgments have become final and executory, or even when already deemed satisfied, that our negligent litigants belatedly come forth to pray for more relief. The distilled wisdom and genius of the ages would tell us to reject their pleas, for the loss to litigants in particular and to society in general would in the long run be greater than the gain if courts and judges were clothed with power to revise their final decisions at will. [48] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The rule is that a judgment must conform to, and be supported by, both the pleadings and the evidence, and must be in accordance with the theory of the action on which the pleadings were framed and the case was tried.[19] The reason for this was discussed in the case of Development Bank of the Philippines v. Teston:[20] | |||||
|
2008-12-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, there is no allegation or prayer in the complaint that Allegro was seeking the collection of the back rentals due Ortigas. Nor was there evidence to that effect. It is elementary that a judgment must conform to, and be supported by, both the pleadings and the evidence, and be in accordance with the theory of the action on which the pleadings are framed and the case was tried.[23] The judgment must be secundum allegata et probata. | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Supervening events refer to facts which transpire after the judgment has become final and executory, or to new circumstances which develop after the judgment has acquired finality, including matters which the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial, as they were not yet in existence at that time. In such case, the court is allowed to admit evidence of new facts and circumstances and thereafter to suspend execution of the judgment and grant relief as may be warranted which may or may not result in its modification.[42] In the instant case, the complaint was filed in 1986; the decision sought to be implemented was rendered in 2001; and the writ of execution was issued in 2004. Clearly, the alleged failure of the respondent corporation to operate since 1981 was not a supervening event. Rather, it was an existing fact which the petitioner ignored for the longest time, only to raise it later as a convenient excuse to evade its obligation under the writ of execution. | |||||
|
2006-01-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| More emphatically, Light Rail Transit Authority v. Court of Appeals [24] declares that "it is the dispositive part of the judgment that actually settles and declares the rights and obligations of the parties, finally, definitively, and authoritatively, notwithstanding the existence of inconsistent statements in the body that may tend to confuse." In this regard, it must be borne in mind "that execution must conform to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision; consequently, where the order of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the order has pro-tanto no validity." [25] | |||||
|
2002-11-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| acquired finality, including matters which the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial as they were not yet in existence at that time.[38] Before an event can be considered a supervening event, justifying the modification or alteration of a final judgment, the event must have transpired after the judgment has become final and executory. The decision of the Court in Natalia Realty vs. Department of Agrarian | |||||