This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| At any rate, it bears pointing out that the dismissal of PEZA's petition was specifically characterized by the CA to be without prejudice. Contrasted from a dismissal with prejudice which disallows and bars the filing of a complaint or initiatory pleading,[50] a dismissal without prejudice - while by no means any less final[51] - plainly indicates that the re-filing of the petition is not barred.[52] While it is true that the petition for review under Rule 43 is required to be filed "within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution x x x or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo,"[53] we find that the OSG, in the interest of substantial justice, may be granted a fresh period of fifteen (15) days within which to re-file the petition before the CA. In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, this Court may, after all, relax the stringent application of the technical rules where, as here, strong considerations of substantial justice are manifest.[54] We find this pro hac vice pronouncement necessary if only to emphasize the fact that the OSG's performance of its functions is mandatory. | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In United Coconut Planters Bank v. Belus[37] and Strongworld Construction Corporation v. Perello,[38] the Court held that where the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; or that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished; or that the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds, such dismissal operates as one with prejudice and which therefore precludes the filing of another action based on the same claim. Hence, according to Madrigal v. Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,[39] such dismissal already constitutes res judicata. | |||||