This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently held that one of the purposes for which courts are organized is to put an end to controversy in the determination of the respective rights of the contending parties. With the full knowledge that courts are not infallible, the litigants submit their respective claims for judgment, and they have a right at some time or another to have final judgment on which they can rely over a final disposition of the issue or issues submitted, and to know that there is an end to the litigation;[57] otherwise, there would be no end to legal processes.[58] | |||||
|
2000-06-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| On the contrary, it was Judge Capulong, as found by the Court of Appeals, who acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when he refused to order the execution of Judge Arcangel's summary judgment on the merits. For indeed, a trial court cannot - apart from reconsidering its decision,[15] granting new trial[16] or allowing a relief from judgment[17] - review much less set aside a decision on the merits. Such power pertains exclusively to the appellate courts.[18] Judge Arcangel's resolution of March 14, 1996 granted all the reliefs prayed for by respondent in its collection suit, i.e., it ordered petitioners to pay their indebtedness to respondent together with penalties, interests and attorney's fees. It, thus, disposed of all the issues and constitutes a judgment on the merits which finally determined the rights of the parties upon the issues submitted by specifically granting the remedy sought by respondent.[19] Now, once a judgment attains finality, it becomes the ministerial duty of the trial court to order its execution.[20] The fact that this collection case is consolidated with Civil Case No. 91-2737 for rescission of sale of real property is not a ground for staying the execution of the judgment therein as the latter is an entirely different action which have no bearing on the other. | |||||