This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-12-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| . . . A party may avail of the remedies prescribed by the Rules of Court for the myriad reliefs from the court. However, such party is not free to resort to them simultaneously or at his pleasure or caprice. Such party must follow the sequence and hierarchical order in availing such remedies and not resort to shortcuts in procedure or playing fast and loose with the said rules. Forum shopping, an act of malpractice, is considered as trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. It is improper conduct and degrades the administration of justice. It the act of the party or its counsel clearly constitutes willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall constitute direct contempt, and a cause for administrative sanctions, as well as a ground for the summary dismissal of the case with prejudice.[29] Finally, it is also to be pointed out that at the heart of the instant petition is an attempt to resurrect the issue of the validity of the 27 February 2003 Court of Appeals Decision which was already sought to be annulled in petitioners' dismissed "Petition (Ex-Abundante Cautela)," a dismissal by this Court which had already attained finality; hence unassailable. We thus remind petitioners that by choosing their forum, and by unfortunately losing their claim thereat, they are nevertheless bound by such adverse judgment on account of finality of judgment, otherwise, there will be no end to litigation.[30] Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause therein should be laid to rest.[31] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of judgment, namely: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. This express limitation is significant since previous jurisprudence recognized other grounds as well.[42] The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[43] Even if the rule on annulment of judgment is grounded on equity, the relief is of an extraordinary character, and not as readily available as the remedies obtaining to a judgment that is not yet final. | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Novation, in its broad concept, may either be extinctive or modificatory.[41] It is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated by the creation of a new obligation that takes the place of the former; it is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement.[42] An extinctive novation results either by changing the object or principal conditions (objective or real), or by substituting the person of the debtor or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor (subjective or personal).[43] Novation has two functions: one to extinguish an existing obligation, the other to substitute a new one in its place.[44] For novation to take place, four essential requisites have to be met, namely, (1) a previous valid obligation; (2) an agreement of all parties concerned to a new contract; (3) the extinguishment of the old obligation; and (4) the birth of a valid new obligation.[45] | |||||
|
2003-06-16 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "6. That this Amicable Settlement is submitted as the basis for decision in this case. "WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the foregoing Amicable Settlement be approved."[3] Novation may either be extinctive or modificatory, much being dependent on the nature of the change and the intention of the parties. Extinctive novation is never presumed; there must be an express intention to novate;[4] in cases where it is implied, the acts of the parties must clearly demonstrate their intent to dissolve the old obligation as the moving consideration for the emergence of the new one.[5] Implied novation necessitates that the incompatibility between the old and new obligation be total on every point such that the old obligation is completely superseded by the new one. The test of incompatibility is whether they can stand together, each one having an independent existence; if they cannot and are irreconcilable, the subsequent obligation would also extinguish the first. | |||||