This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-11-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| During the pendency of G.R. No. 165338, or on August 29, 2006, Mahinay filed with the RTC a Reiteratory Motion to Compel Jocelyn "Joy" B. Sorensen to Surrender Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 117531.[46] In persuading Judge Gako to reconsider his earlier position, Mahinay alleged that in a related case[47] filed by the owners which eventually reached the Supreme Court and docketed as G.R. No. 153762,[48] this Court held that the Decision in Civil Case No. CEB-16335 had long become final and executory, thereby erasing any doubt that the transaction between the owners and Suarez was indeed a contract of sale. For Mahinay, this Court's ruling in G.R. No. 153762 is a supervening event which would justify Judge Gako to reconsider his earlier position on the matter of directing Sorensen to hand over to him the owner's copy of TCT No. 117531. He also suggested that if Judge Gako would grant his motion, the administrative charge of gross ignorance of the law against the good judge would become moot. | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Assuming that the Heirs of Venturillo have a cause of action ripe for the extraordinary writ of certiorari, they disregarded the hierarchy of courts when they directly filed their petition with this Court. Considering that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the petition should have been initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts.[12] | |||||
|
2006-09-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, 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. This doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice. In fact, 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.[40] | |||||