Lawyerly

GR No. 163598

2015-08-12

AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE INC.

JARDELEZA, J.

In Collantes v. Court of Appeals,[66] the Court offered three options to solve a case of conflicting decisions: the first is tor the parties to assert their claims anew, the second is to determine which judgment came first, and the third is to determine which of the judgments had been rendered by a court of last resort. In that case, the Court applied the first option and resolved the conflicting issues anew.

GR No. 157717

2011-04-13

DERLA v. HEIRS OF CATALINA DERLA VDA. DE HIPOLITO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The petitioners also argue that if res judicata is to be applied in this case, then it should be applied to bar O.P. Case No. 4732 as it overturned the final and executory decisions of the same office dated February 5 and July 23, 1974. The petitioners are forgetting the fact that before these 1974 decisions were made, the February 11, 1972 decision of the same Office of the President had already become final and executory and the rights conferred to Hipolito by virtue of that final and executory decision had already become vested in him. To follow the petitioners' line of argument therefore, would lead us to the conclusion that if there is any one decision that should be retained, then it should be the first decision that had attained finality. This reasoning finds support in Collantes v. Court of Appeals,[67] where we held that when faced with two conflicting final and executory decisions, one of the options the Court can take is to determine which judgment came first. The first judgment to become final and executory is the February 11, 1972 decision of the Office of the President, which is still in favor of Hipolito and the respondents, as Hipolito's successors-in-interest.

GR No. 171736

2010-07-05

PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY

NACHURA, J.

What is important in determining whether forum-shopping exists is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[58]

GR No. 175393

2009-12-18

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. RTC OF PASIG CITY

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It has not escaped our notice that petitioner deliberately filed two cases, herein consolidated, involving the same parties and issues, in its desperate attempt to stay the execution of the judgment against it. Petitioner should be reminded that our rules on forum shopping are meant to prevent the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different fora upon the same issues.[68] Petitioner is admonished from bending the rules of procedure to suit its purposes. Obedience to the rules promulgated by this Court to ensure the efficient administration of justice must be the norm, and not the exception.

GR No. 174642

2009-10-30

DOMINADOR C. VILLA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

BRION, J.

At this point, the doctrine of immutability of judgment became fully operational. Under this doctrine, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land.[9] Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down. The only exceptions to this rule are: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.[10] In the absence of any effective invocation of these exceptions - and none has so been made in this case - the judgment of the court must be implemented according to its terms.

GR No. 172986

2009-10-02

ARNULFO A. AGUILAR v. CA

BRION, J.

The settled and firmly established rule is that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of the judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds true whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[31] The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which no end to litigations will take place. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act that violates such principle must immediately be struck down.[32] Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of courts, but extends as well to those of all other tribunals exercising adjudicatory powers.[33]

GR No. 182311

2009-08-19

FIDEL O. CHUA v. METROPOLITAN BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).[34]

GR No. 171842

2009-07-22

GLORIA S. DY v. MANDY COMMODITIES CO.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Forum shopping is a deplorable practice of litigants consisting of resorting to two different fora for the purpose of obtaining the same relief, to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable judgment.[4] What is pivotal to the determination of whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused to the courts and the party-litigants by a person who asks appellate courts and/or administrative entities to rule on the same related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same relief, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions by the different courts or fora upon the same issues.[5]

GR No. 178366

2008-07-28

DOMINADOR A. MOCORRO v. RODITO RAMIREZ

VELASCO JR., J.

A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds true whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[15] The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act, which violates such principle, must immediately be struck down.[16] Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers had been conferred.[17]

GR No. 160993

2008-05-20

TEMIC SEMICONDUCTORS v. FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS

VELASCO JR., J.

It is axiomatic that "a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. A final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law; and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land."[13] Any act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down.[14] Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but it extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers had been conferred.[15]

GR NO. 158998

2008-03-28

BIGLANG-AWA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

exclusively owned by Encarnacion. Since the February 2, 2001 Order and the April 16, 2001 Resolution of the RTC had already become final and executory, petitioners are already precluded from claiming otherwise. If petitioners are permitted to amend their complaint they would, in effect, alter a factual conclusion of the RTC which it used as its basis in rendering its February 2, 2001 Order and April 16, 2001 Resolution. Settled is the rule that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable.[28] A final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law; and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[29] The only exceptions to this rule are the correction of (1) clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments.[30] None of these exceptions are present in the instant case.

GR No. 179104

2008-02-29

ANASTACIO TUBALLA HEIRS v. RAUL CABRERA

VELASCO JR., J.

A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. A final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law; and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[5]

GR No. 147082

2008-01-28

HEIRS OF MAURA SO v. vs.LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA

NACHURA, J.

In Collantes v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court offered three options to solve a case of conflicting decisions: the first is for the parties to assert their claims anew, the second is to determine which judgment came first, and the third is to determine which of the judgments had been rendered by a court of last resort. In that case, the Court applied the first option and resolved the conflicting issues anew.

	GR No. 163598 2015-08-12	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE INC. JARDELEZA, J.
In Collantes v. Court of Appeals,[66] the Court offered three options to solve a case of conflicting decisions: the first is tor the parties to assert their claims anew, the second is to determine which judgment came first, and the third is to determine which of the judgments had been rendered by a court of last resort. In that case, the Court applied the first option and resolved the conflicting issues anew.
	GR No. 157717 2011-04-13	DERLA v. HEIRS OF CATALINA DERLA VDA. DE HIPOLITO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The petitioners also argue that if res judicata is to be applied in this case, then it should be applied to bar O.P. Case No. 4732 as it overturned the final and executory decisions of the same office dated February 5 and July 23, 1974. The petitioners are forgetting the fact that before these 1974 decisions were made, the February 11, 1972 decision of the same Office of the President had already become final and executory and the rights conferred to Hipolito by virtue of that final and executory decision had already become vested in him. To follow the petitioners' line of argument therefore, would lead us to the conclusion that if there is any one decision that should be retained, then it should be the first decision that had attained finality. This reasoning finds support in Collantes v. Court of Appeals,[67] where we held that when faced with two conflicting final and executory decisions, one of the options the Court can take is to determine which judgment came first. The first judgment to become final and executory is the February 11, 1972 decision of the Office of the President, which is still in favor of Hipolito and the respondents, as Hipolito's successors-in-interest.
	GR No. 171736 2010-07-05	PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY NACHURA, J.
What is important in determining whether forum-shopping exists is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[58]
	GR No. 175393 2009-12-18	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. RTC OF PASIG CITY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It has not escaped our notice that petitioner deliberately filed two cases, herein consolidated, involving the same parties and issues, in its desperate attempt to stay the execution of the judgment against it. Petitioner should be reminded that our rules on forum shopping are meant to prevent the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different fora upon the same issues.[68] Petitioner is admonished from bending the rules of procedure to suit its purposes. Obedience to the rules promulgated by this Court to ensure the efficient administration of justice must be the norm, and not the exception.
	GR No. 174642 2009-10-30	DOMINADOR C. VILLA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM BRION, J.
At this point, the doctrine of immutability of judgment became fully operational. Under this doctrine, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land.[9] Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down. The only exceptions to this rule are: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.[10] In the absence of any effective invocation of these exceptions - and none has so been made in this case - the judgment of the court must be implemented according to its terms.
	GR No. 172986 2009-10-02	ARNULFO A. AGUILAR v. CA BRION, J.
The settled and firmly established rule is that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of the judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds true whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[31] The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which no end to litigations will take place. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act that violates such principle must immediately be struck down.[32] Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of courts, but extends as well to those of all other tribunals exercising adjudicatory powers.[33]
	GR No. 182311 2009-08-19	FIDEL O. CHUA v. METROPOLITAN BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).[34]
	GR No. 171842 2009-07-22	GLORIA S. DY v. MANDY COMMODITIES CO. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping is a deplorable practice of litigants consisting of resorting to two different fora for the purpose of obtaining the same relief, to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable judgment.[4] What is pivotal to the determination of whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused to the courts and the party-litigants by a person who asks appellate courts and/or administrative entities to rule on the same related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same relief, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions by the different courts or fora upon the same issues.[5]
	GR No. 178366 2008-07-28	DOMINADOR A. MOCORRO v. RODITO RAMIREZ VELASCO JR., J.
A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds true whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[15] The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act, which violates such principle, must immediately be struck down.[16] Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers had been conferred.[17]
	GR No. 160993 2008-05-20	TEMIC SEMICONDUCTORS v. FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS VELASCO JR., J.
It is axiomatic that "a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. A final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law; and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land."[13] Any act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down.[14] Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but it extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers had been conferred.[15]
	GR NO. 158998 2008-03-28	BIGLANG-AWA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
exclusively owned by Encarnacion. Since the February 2, 2001 Order and the April 16, 2001 Resolution of the RTC had already become final and executory, petitioners are already precluded from claiming otherwise. If petitioners are permitted to amend their complaint they would, in effect, alter a factual conclusion of the RTC which it used as its basis in rendering its February 2, 2001 Order and April 16, 2001 Resolution. Settled is the rule that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable.[28] A final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law; and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[29] The only exceptions to this rule are the correction of (1) clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments.[30] None of these exceptions are present in the instant case.
	GR No. 179104 2008-02-29	ANASTACIO TUBALLA HEIRS v. RAUL CABRERA VELASCO JR., J.
A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. A final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law; and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[5]
	GR No. 147082 2008-01-28	HEIRS OF MAURA SO v. vs.LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA NACHURA, J.
In Collantes v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court offered three options to solve a case of conflicting decisions: the first is for the parties to assert their claims anew, the second is to determine which judgment came first, and the third is to determine which of the judgments had been rendered by a court of last resort. In that case, the Court applied the first option and resolved the conflicting issues anew.

NELSON P. COLLANTES v. CA