This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioners contend that the CA contravened the doctrine of immutability of final judgments when it issued its amended decision of August 30, 2012 nullifying the final and executory decision of its Special 12th Division declaring their dismissal illegal. They insist that the CA ruling had become immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, regardless of whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. They invoke the Court's pronouncement in Silliman University v. Fontelo-Paalan,[31] in support of their position. They submit that for this reason, even the Court's rulings in the illegal strike case and the illegal dismissal case cannot alter the fact that they had been illegally dismissed. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The CA properly shunned petitioners' prayer to further modify the assailed judgment to include a beginning balance for the accounting ordered. It is well to note that petitioners' appeal from the decision of the lower court was deemed abandoned when they failed to file their appellants' brief. Not having filed an appeal, petitioners could not have obtained any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what they obtained, if any, from the lower court. After all, a party who does not appeal from a judgment can no longer seek modification or reversal of the same. He may oppose the appeal of the other party only on grounds consistent with the judgment.[61]The appealed decision becomes final as to the party who does not appeal. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In Siliman University v. Fontelo-Paalan[18] and Itogon-Suyoc Mines Inc. v. NLRC, et al.,[19] we have explained that:The rule is well-settled that a party cannot impugn the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him; and while he may make counter assignment of errors, he can do so only to sustain the judgment on other grounds but not to seek modification or reversal thereof, for in such case, he must appeal.[20] | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court notes further that no appeal was interposed to challenge the CA's decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 75185. The said decision declaring petitioner as illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages, therefore, already attained finality. Established is the rule that when a decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the case and not even an appellate court will have the power to review the said judgment. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation and will set 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 settling justiciable controversies with finality.[27] We have further stressed in prior cases that just as the losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[28] | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Second, well-settled is the principle 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.[22] The reason for this is that litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party, through a mere subterfuge, be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[23] | |||||