Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODOLFO RAMOS v. JUDGE ALFONSO V. COMBONG

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 166988 2009-07-03	HEIRS OF EMILIANO SAN PEDRO v. PABLITO GARCIA PERALTA, J.
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[50] The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgment/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by law, rules and regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there could be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must be struck down.[51]
	GR No. 161220 2008-07-30	BENATIRO v. HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The remedy of annulment of judgment is extraordinary in character[25] and will not so easily and readily lend itself to abuse by parties aggrieved by final judgments. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 impose strict conditions for recourse to it, viz.:Section 1. Coverage. This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
	GR No. 147082 2008-01-28	HEIRS OF MAURA SO v. vs.LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA NACHURA, J.
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final on some definite date fixed by law.[24] The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable.[25] Again, none of these exceptions is present in this case.
	GR NO. 150207 2007-02-23	VALENTIN P. FRAGINAL v. HEIRS OF TORIBIA BELMONTE PARAÑAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The remedy of annulment of judgment is extraordinary in character,[16] and will not so easily and readily lend itself to abuse by parties aggrieved by final judgments. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 impose strict conditions for recourse to it, viz.:Section 1. Coverage.- This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
	GR NO. 142236 2006-09-27	FILIPRO v. PERMANENT SAVINGS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[22]