This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-14 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Res judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments. Controversies once decided on the merits shall remain in repose for there should be an end to litigation which, without the doctrine, would be endless.[40] As We declared in Camara v. Court of Appeals,[41] both concepts of res judicata are:x x x founded on the principle of estoppel, and are based on the salutary policy against unnecessary multiplicity of suits. Like the splitting of causes of action, res judicata is in pursuance of such policy. Matters settled by a Court's final judgment should not be litigated upon or invoked again. Relitigation of issues already settled merely burdens the Courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier causes. As the Roman maxim goes, Non bis in edem.[42] The regularization cases initiated and participated in by petitioner are now final and executory, and the issues resolved in that case should no longer be disturbed. Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgmentbecomes final and executory it becomes immutable and unalterable. The same may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and whether made by the highest court of the land. The reason is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgments or orders of courts must be final at some definite date fixed by law.[43] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| May 18, 2006 the CA through its Special Tenth Division rendered its Decision setting aside the November 26, 2004 and July 12, 2005 Resolutions of the MAB and reinstating the October 24, 2000 MAB Decision. From these facts, the CA Special Tenth Division should have ordered the consolidation of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90828 by CA-G.R. SP No. 87931 pursuant to the Internal Rules of the CA, the latter having the earlier docket number. Had it done so, then the occurrence of the conflicting decisions could have been prevented. The CA Special Tenth Division should have abided by our ruling in Nacuray v. NLRC, where we held, "Consequently, a division cannot and should not review a case already passed upon by another Division of this Court. It is only proper, to allow the case to take its rest after having attained finality."[60] | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We are not unmindful that in labor disputes, social justice exhorts courts to lean backwards in favor of the working class. Corollary thereto, it is doctrinal that in labor disputes, rules of procedure cannot be applied in a rigid and technical sense.[10] Thus, in appropriate cases, we have not hesitated to relax matters of procedure in the interest of substantial justice.[11] As applied herein, however, our hands are tied by the fact that the case had already attained finality long before it got here. As we declared in Nacuray v. National Labor Relations Commission[12] . . . Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment becomes final and executory it becomes immutable and unalterable. The same may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and whether made by the highest court of the land. The reason is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgments or orders of courts must be final at some definite date fixed by law. | |||||