This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Execution of a judgment is the fruit and end of the suit, and is the life of the law. To frustrate it for several years by means of deception and dilatory schemes on the part of the losing litigants is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts.[13] The Court's Decision in this case became final and executory as early as 2005. After years of continuous wrangling during the execution stage, it is unfortunate that the judgment still awaits full implementation. Delaying tactics employed by the losing litigant have prevented orderly execution. It is in the interest of justice that we write finis to this litigation.[14] | |||||
|
2006-07-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Basic is the rule that if a party fails or refuses to abide by a compromise agreement, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand. This rule must be followed.[19] As it is, Branch 43 was without power to relieve respondents from an obligation they had voluntarily assumed, simply because the compromise agreement turned out to be unwise, disastrous or foolish. It had no authority to impose upon the parties a judgment different from or against the terms and conditions of their compromise agreement.[20] | |||||