This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| This judicially created doctrine exists as an obvious rule of reason, justice, fairness, expediency, practical necessity, and public tranquility. Moreover, public policy, judicial orderliness, economy of judicial time, and the interest of litigants, as well as the peace and order of society, all require that stability should be accorded judgments, that controversies once decided on their merits shall remain in repose, that inconsistent judicial decision shall not be made on the same set of fads, and that there be an end to litigation which, without the doctrine of res judicata, would be endless. (Citations omitted.)[54] | |||||
|
2015-10-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan,[33] it was reiterated that res judicata, as preserved in the Rules of Court, comprehends not only the concept of bar by former judgment or claim preclusion (the non-existence of which is relied upon by SPCBA), but also includes the concept of conclusiveness of judgment. | |||||