This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In support thereof, Spouses Paulino cite Republic vs. Castro,[15] where the Court ruled that annulment of judgment is never resorted to as a substitute for a party's own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies. In Republic vs. TAFPA Inc.,[16] it was held that, whether through inadvertence or negligence of its deputized counsel or the OSG itself, the decision had already become final and executory and could not be annulled. To conclude otherwise would run counter to the basic principles of fair play. Besides, there would be no end to litigations if the parties, who unsuccessfully availed themselves of any of the appropriate remedies or lost them through their fault or inadvertence, could have unfavorable decisions annulled by simply bringing an action for annulment of judgment. | |||||
|
2011-09-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Such erroneous grant of relief to the defendants on appeal, however, is but an exercise of jurisdiction by the RTC. Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein.[24] The ground for annulment of the decision is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.[25] | |||||