This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Given the finality of the RTC decision, the same should be considered a valid supervening event. A supervening event refers to facts and events transpiring after the judgment or order had become executory. These circumstances affect or change the substance of the judgment and render its execution inequitable.[26] Here, the RTC's March 8, 2013 decision, ordering the deletion of Hayudini's name in the list of voters, which came after the dismissal of Omar's first petition, is indubitably a supervening event which would render the execution of the ruling in SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F) iniquitous and unjust. As the COMELEC aptly ruled, the decision to exclude Hayudini was still non-existent when the COMELEC first promulgated the Resolution in SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F) on January 31, 2013, or when the issues involved therein were passed upon.[27] The First Division even expressed that although the Election Registration Board (ERB) denied Hayudini's application for registration, it could not adopt the same because it was not yet final as Hayudini was still to file a Petition for Inclusion before the MCTC.[28] Thus, it is not far-fetched to say that had this final RTC finding been existent before, the COMELEC First Division could have taken judicial notice of it and issued a substantially different ruling in SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F).[29] | |||||
|
2013-06-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| 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.[10] 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.[11] In that event, the interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or the quashal of the writ of execution,[12] or he may move the court to modify or alter the judgment in order to harmonize it with justice and the supervening event.[13] 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. | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| A supervening event affects or changes the substance of the judgment and renders the execution thereof inequitable.[53] Should such an event occur after a judgment becomes final and executory, which event may render the execution of the judgment impossible or unjust, Ramirez v. Court of Appeals[54] dictates that a stay or preclusion of execution may properly be sought. | |||||