This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-12 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In Natividad v. Mariano. et al.,[63] we held that the DARAB and the Court of Appeals did not err in reopening and ruling on the merits of the case because the PARAD effectively and gravely abused its discretion and acted without jurisdiction in denying the petition for relief from judgment. Thus: We cannot blame Ernesto for insisting that the PARAD decision can no longer be altered. The doctrine of immutability of final judgments, grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice, is well settled. Indeed, once a decision has attained finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, whether the modification is to be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The doctrine holds true even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. The judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must, on some definite date fixed by law, become final even at the risk of occasional errors. The only accepted exceptions to this general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable. | |||||
|
2014-07-02 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In any case, notwithstanding the doctrine of immutability of judgments, this court has set aside procedural rules in "[t]he broader interests of justice and equity."[54] | |||||