This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2012-03-14 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that after a judgment has gained finality, it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution. No court should interfere, by injunction or otherwise, to restrain such execution.[25] The rule, however, admits of exceptions, such as the following: (1) when facts and circumstances later transpire that would render execution inequitable or unjust; or (2) when there is a change in the situation of the parties that may warrant an injunctive relief.[26] In this case, after the finality of the RTC Decision, there were no supervening events or changes in the situation of the parties that would entail the injunction of the Writ of Execution. | |||||
|
2011-08-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is true that notwithstanding the principle of immutability of final judgments, equity still accords some recourse to a party adversely affected by a final and executory judgment, specifically, the remedy of a petition to annul the judgment based on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, or the remedy of a petition for relief from a final order or judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.[43] He may also have a competent court stay the execution or prevent the enforcement of a final judgment when facts and circumstances that render execution inequitable or unjust meanwhile transpire;[44] or when a change in the situation of the parties can warrant an injunctive relief.[45] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| As to the subject matter, we find that there is no identity. The subject matter of an action is "the matter or thing with respect to which the controversy has arisen, concerning which the wrong has been done, and this ordinarily is the property, or the contract and its subject matter, or the thing in dispute."[23] In an unlawful detainer case, the subject matter is the contract of lease between the parties while the breach thereof constitutes the suit's cause of action.[24] In the present case, the lease contract subject of the controversy is verbal and on a monthly basis. In these instances, it is well settled that the lease is one with a definite period which expires after the last day of any given thirty-day period.[25] Following this reasoning, it becomes apparent that what exists between the parties is not just one continuous contract of lease, but a succession of lease contracts, each spanning a period of one month. Hence, to be accurate, each action for ejectment--each referring to a unique thirty-day period of occupation of respondents' property by the petitioner--deals with a separate and distinct lease contract corresponding to a separate and distinct juridical relation between the parties. Considering, therefore, that the subject matter of Civil Case No. 167142-CV is a different contract of lease from the subject matter of the instant case, it is obvious that there is no identity of subject matter between the first ejectment suit and the ejectment suit subject of the present action. | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The present action of the spouses Ley is not barred by res judicata since the previous and the present cases involve different subject matters and causes of action. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.[38] The subject matter, on the other hand, is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under dispute.[39] | |||||
|
2006-08-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other.[19] A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint.[20] The allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants if, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. A cause of action exists if the following elements are present, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[21] | |||||
|
2006-07-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In order that the principle of res judicata may be made to apply, four essential conditions must concur, namely: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment or order on the merits, and (4) there must be between the first and second action identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action.[29] In the absence of any one of these elements, Atty. de Vera cannot argue res judicata in his favor. | |||||
|
2004-02-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It cannot be denied also that in the actions filed by petitioners in the different courts, as well as in the PARAB, there is identity of parties, of subject matter and of causes of action. The ultimate test in ascertaining the identity of causes of action in two suits is to look into whether or not the same evidence fully supports and establishes both the present cause of action and the former cause of action. If in the affirmative, the former judgment would be a bar.[30] Petitioners in all instances sought to prove the existence of tenancy relationship with respondents over a huge area devoted to fishpond operations. They had to present the same evidence in any case, and they did. On this score, we note that petitioners' counsel failed to apprise this Court of all the actions tending to raise the same cause of action, filed in different judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, in contravention of the undertaking specified in the certification on non-forum shopping. Petitioners and their counsel made no mention of the petition for annulment of judgment/compromise agreement filed with the RTC of Malabon, Branch 74, nor of the petition for certiorari with injunction filed with RTC of Malabon, Branch 170, on April 4, 2001 assailing the February 26, 2001 order of execution of the municipal trial court. Petitioners through counsel showed a lack of candor in coming to this Court without full disclosure of prior actions taken successively or simultaneously. Respondents claim that petitioners engaged in forum shopping as shown by the records in this controversy. However, the Court deems it necessary to decide now this case on the merits, rather than merely relying on a technicality, for the sake of substantive justice due the concerned parties. | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The subject matters and causes of action of the two cases are likewise identical. A subject matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under dispute. In the case at bar, both the first and second actions involve the same real property. A cause of action, broadly defined, is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other.[22] Its elements are the following: (1) the legal right of plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.[23] Causes of action are identical when there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions, or where the same evidence will sustain both actions. If the same facts or evidence can sustain either, the two actions are considered the same, so that the judgment in one is a bar to the other.[24] | |||||