This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Dy v. Bibat-Palamos,[17] the Court recognized various exceptions to the strict application of the principle of hierarchy of courts, as follows: xxx, the invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition, such as, (1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case. | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The final and executory nature of the RTC Decision dated April 10, 1990 as against Maricalum is undisputed. Said RTC decision was, in fact, the source of the orders of execution issued by the RTC dated March 9, 2001 and May 10, 2001. Indeed, the well-settled principle of immutability of final judgments demands that once a judgment has become final, the winning party should not, through a mere subterfuge, be deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[29] There are, however, recognized exceptions to the execution as a matter of right of a final and immutable judgment, one of which is the existence of a supervening event.[30] "A supervening event is a fact which transpires or a new circumstance which develops after a judgment has become final and executory. This includes matters which the parties were unaware of prior to or during trial because they were not yet in existence at that time."[31] To be sufficient to stay or stop the execution, a supervening event must create a substantial change in the rights or relations of the parties which would render execution of a final judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making it imperative to stay immediate execution in the interest of justice.[32] | |||||
|
2014-11-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In G.R. No. 156052, the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 8027 was declared as a guarantee for the protection of the constitutional right to life of the residents of Manila. There, the Court said that the enactment of the said ordinance was a valid exercise of police power with the concurrence of the two requisites: a lawful subject "to safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of all the inhabitants of Manila;"[125] and a lawful method the enactment of Ordinance No. 8027 reclassifying the land use from industrial to commercial, which effectively ends the continued stay of the oil depots in Pandacan.[126] | |||||