This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-01-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose, to wit: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely.[2] | |||||
|
2010-11-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A judgment becomes "final and executory" by operation of law. Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period to appeal lapses, and no appeal is perfected within such period.[33] | |||||
|
2010-04-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Social Security System v. Isip[67] reiterates the well-established doctrine regarding finality of judgments, thus: A judgment becomes "final and executory" by operation of law. Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period to appeal lapses and no appeal is perfected within such period. As a consequence, no court (not even this Court) can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review a case or modify a decision that has became final. | |||||
|
2009-08-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A judgment becomes "final and executory" by operation of law. Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period to appeal lapses and no appeal is perfected within such period. As a consequence, no court (not even this Court) can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review a case or modify a decision that has become final.[32] When a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court, which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[33] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| No other procedural law principle is indeed more settled than that once a judgment becomes final, it is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal, except only for correction of clerical errors, or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, or where the judgment itself is void.[26] The underlying reason for the rule is two-fold: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and (2) to put judicial controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional errors, inasmuch as controversies cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely and the rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time.[27] As the Court declared in Yau v. Silverio,[28] | |||||
|
2009-07-31 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Here, petitioner paid the appeal fee only after the Office of the President had already dismissed his appeal on December 22, 2003. Obviously, at the time of payment, the assailed decision and order of the DENR had already attained finality. A judgment becomes "final and executory" by operation of law. Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period to appeal lapses and no appeal is perfected within such period.[27] Hence, just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the case.[28] | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by setting justiciable controversies with finality.[16] In the recent case of Social Security System v. Isip,[17] this Court reiterated the long established doctrine, thus:When a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time. | |||||
|
2008-03-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Nothing is more settled in the law than that 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 or law and whether it will be made by the Court that rendered it or by the highest Court of the land.[30] The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[31] | |||||