This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As a rule, parties are not allowed to object to the execution of a final judgment.[12] One exception is when the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for its interpretation.[13] If the exception applies, the respondents may seek the stay of execution or the quashal of the writ of execution.[14] Although an order of execution is not appealable, an aggrieved party may challenge the order of execution via an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[15] The special civil action of prohibition is an available remedy against a tribunal exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial powers if it acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[16] | |||||
|
2015-08-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The rule, however, admits exceptions: first, the correction of clerical errors; second, the making of nunc pro tunc entries which causes no prejudice to any party; third, an attack against a void judgment; and. fourth and last, supervening events that render execution unjust and inequitable.[46] | |||||
|
2015-07-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Abrigo v. Flores,[33] we said: We deem it highly relevant to point out that a supervening event is an exception to the execution as a matter of right of a final and immutable judgment rule, only if it directly affects the matter already litigated and settled, or substantially changes the rights or relations of the parties therein as to render the execution unjust, impossible or inequitable. A supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the judgment became final and executory, or of new circumstances that develop after the judgment attained finality, including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial because such matters were not yet in existence at that time. In that event, the interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or the quashal of the writ of execution, or he may move the court to modify or alter the judgment in order to harmonize it with justice and the supervening event. The party who alleges a supervening event to stay the execution should necessarily establish the facts by competent evidence; otherwise, it would become all too easy to frustrate the conclusive effects of a final and immutable judgment.[34] | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| And equally settled is the rule that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable.[44] It may no longer be modified in any respect, except to correct clerical errors or to make mine pro tune entries, or when it is a void judgment.[45] Outside of these exceptions, the court which rendered judgment only has the ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution.[46] A decision that has attained finality becomes the law of the case regardless of any claim that it is erroneous.[47] Any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose.[48] Thus, an order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.[49] | |||||