This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| There is identity of parties in the 1st and 2nd ALPAP cases, on one hand, and the Petitions at bar. While the 1st and 2nd ALPAP cases concerned ALPAP and the present Petitions involved several individual members of ALPAP, the union acted in the 1st and 2nd ALPAP cases in representation of its members. In fact, in the 2nd ALPAP case, the Court explicitly recognized that the complaint for illegal lockout was filed by ALPAP on behalf of all its members who were returning to work.[42] Also in the said case, ALPAP raised, albeit belatedly, exactly the same arguments as Rodriguez, et al. herein. Granting that there is no absolute identity of parties, what is required, however, for the application of the principle of res judicata is not absolute, but only substantial identity of parties. ALPAP and Rodriguez, et al. share an identity of interest from which flowed an identity of relief sought, namely, the reinstatement of the terminated ALPAP members to their former positions. Such identity of interest is sufficient to make them privy-in-law, one to the other, and meets the requisite of substantial identity of parties.[43] | |||||
|
2008-10-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Intervenors, meanwhile, may be given legal standing upon showing of facts that satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention,[88] such as a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties. | |||||
|
2008-02-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence establishes that the Court is not bound by the classification of positions in the civil service made by the legislative or executive branches, or even by a constitutional body like the petitioner.[23] The Court is expected to make its own determination as to the nature of a particular position, such as whether it is a primarily confidential position or not, without being bound by prior classifications made by other bodies.[24] The findings of the other branches of government are merely considered initial and not conclusive to the Court.[25] Moreover, it is well-established that in case the findings of various agencies of government, such as the petitioner and the CA in the instant case, are in conflict, the Court must exercise its constitutional role as final arbiter of all justiciable controversies and disputes.[26] | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners relying on Firestone Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[31] as a precedent to the case at bar contend that the instant reversion suit is now barred by res judicata. | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under the rule of res judicata, also known as "bar by prior judgment," a final judgment or order on the merits, rendered by a Court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties and their successor-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. The requisites essential for the application of the principle are: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) said judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the Court rendering the same must have jurisdiction on the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be between the two cases identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action.[10] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that when a court of competent jurisdiction has tried and decided a right or fact, so long as the decision remains unreversed, it is conclusive on the parties and those in privity with them.[11] More so where the Supreme Court has already decided the issue since the Court is the final arbiter of all justiciable controversies properly brought before it.[12] As held in Buaya v. Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc.:[13] | |||||