This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-09-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Res judicata has two concepts. The first is bar by prior judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(b), and the second is conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(c).[16] These concepts differ as to the extent of the effect of a judgment or final order as follows: SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows: | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The fairly recent case of Co v. People,[26] likewise applies to the present case. An information was filed against Co by private respondent spouses who claim to be employees of the former for violation of the Social Security Act, specifically for non-remittance of SSS contributions. Earlier, respondent spouses had filed a labor case for illegal dismissal. The NLRC finally ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between her and respondent spouses. Co then filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the facts alleged in the Information did not constitute an offense because respondent spouses were not her employees. In support of her motion, she cited the NLRC ruling. This Court applied Smith Bell and declared that the final and executory NLRC decision to the effect that respondent spouses were not the employees of petitioner is a ruling binding in the case for violation of the Social Security Act. The Court further stated that the doctrine of "conclusiveness of judgment" also applies in criminal cases.[27] | |||||
|
2010-07-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Res judicata or bar by prior judgment is a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause. The doctrine of res judicata is founded on a public policy against re-opening that which has previously been decided, so as to put the litigation to an end.[25] 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 cases.[26] | |||||