Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RICARDO S. SILVERIO v. FILIPINO BUSINESS CONSULTANTS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 193945 2015-06-22	REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. MARICALUM MINING CORPORATION REYES, J.
The final and executory nature of the RTC Decision dated April 10, 1990 as against Maricalum is undisputed. Said RTC decision was, in fact, the source of the orders of execution issued by the RTC dated March 9, 2001 and May 10, 2001. Indeed, the well-settled principle of immutability of final judgments demands that once a judgment has become final, the winning party should not, through a mere subterfuge, be deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[29] There are, however, recognized exceptions to the execution as a matter of right of a final and immutable judgment, one of which is the existence of a supervening event.[30] "A supervening event is a fact which transpires or a new circumstance which develops after a judgment has become final and executory. This includes matters which the parties were unaware of prior to or during trial because they were not yet in existence at that time."[31] To be sufficient to stay or stop the execution, a supervening event must create a substantial change in the rights or relations of the parties which would render execution of a final judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making it imperative to stay immediate execution in the interest of justice.[32]
	GR No. 146754 2012-03-21	SPS. JESSE CACHOPERO AND BEMA CACHOPERO v. RACHEL CELESTIAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Unless the spouses Cachopero can show this Court that there is a supervening event, which occurred after the judgment of the MTC, and which brought about a material change in their situation vis-a-vis that of Celestial, the latter has the right to have the compromise agreement executed, according to its terms.[41]
	GR No. 167000 2011-06-08	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC) LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is settled in jurisprudence that to stay execution of a final judgment, a supervening event "must create a substantial change in the rights or relations of the parties which would render execution of a final judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making it imperative to stay immediate execution in the interest of justice." [94]
	GR No. 142676 2011-06-06	EMERITA MUÑOZ v. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters that do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings. [60] An order granting a preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, is interlocutory and unappealable. [61]
	GR NO. 168414 2006-08-31	BENEDICTO S. AZCUETA v. LA UNION TOBACCO REDRYING CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Silverio, Jr. v. Filipino Business Consultants, Inc.,[34] we held:The court may stay immediate execution of a judgment when supervening events, occurring subsequent to the judgment, bring about a material change in the situation of the parties. To justify the stay of immediate execution, the supervening events must have a direct effect on the matter already litigated and settled. Or, the supervening events must create a substantial change in the rights or relations of the parties which would render execution of a final judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making it imperative to stay immediate execution in the interest of justice.