Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUMALO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF HERMOSA v. JAMES T. LITTON

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Justice Abad: So why is it that the rights of those who gave up their lands would be diluted, because the company has chosen to use the shares as reward system for new workers who come in? It is not that the new workers, in effect, become just workers of the corporation whose stockholders were already fixed. The TADECO who has shares there about sixty six percent (66%) and the five thousand four hundred ninety eight (5,498) farmers at the time of the SDOA? Explain to me. Why, why will you x x x what right or where did you get that right to use this shares, to water down the shares of those who should have been benefited, and to use it as a reward system decided by the company? [142]
	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. 142236 2006-09-27	FILIPRO v. PERMANENT SAVINGS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi- judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the 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.[24]