This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Unlike a practicing lawyer who can decline employment, it has been ruled that the Solicitor General cannot refuse to perform his duty to represent the government, its agencies, instrumentalities, officials and agents without a just and valid reason.[34] Resolving a challenge against the Solicitor General's withdrawal of his appearance from cases involving the Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in Gonzales v. Chavez,[35] the Court traced the statutory origins and transformation of the OSG and concluded that the performance of its vested functions and duties is mandatory and compellable by mandamus.[36] The Court ratiocinated that, "[s]ound management policies require that the government's approach to legal problems and policies formulated on legal issues be harmonized and coordinated by a specific agency."[37] Finding that that the Solicitor General's withdrawal of his appearance was "beyond the scope of his authority in the management of a case," the Court enunciated that the enjoinment of the former's duty is not an interference with his discretion in handling the case but a directive to prevent the failure of justice.[38] | |||||
|
2012-08-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| But the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment has not been absolute, and has admitted several exceptions, among them: (a) the correction of clerical errors; (b) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party; (c) void judgments; and (d) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision that render its execution unjust and inequitable.[90] Moreover, in Heirs of Maura So v. Obliosca,[91] we stated that despite the absence of the preceding circumstances, the Court is not precluded from brushing aside procedural norms if only to serve the higher interests of justice and equity. Also, in Gumaru v. Quirino State College,[92] the Court nullified the proceedings and the writ of execution issued by the RTC for the reason that respondent state college had not been represented in the litigation by the Office of the Solicitor General. | |||||