Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAYON ESTATE CORPORATION v. MARIETTA ALTURA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 188233 2010-06-29	QUERUBIN L. ALBA v. ROBERT L. YUPANGCO CARPIO MORALES, J.
By declaring that respondent's liability is solidary, the Labor Arbiter modified the already final and executory October 25, 1999 Decision. That is impermissible, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[7] The only recognized exceptions are the corrections of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries[8] which cause no prejudice to any party and in cases where the judgment is void.[9] Said exceptions are not present in the present case.
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
Nothing is more settled in law than that when a final judgment is executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment 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. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[72]
	GR No. 175399 2009-10-27	OPHELIA L. TUATIS v. SPS. ELISEO ESCOL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nothing is more settled in law than that when a final judgment is executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment 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. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time. The only recognized exceptions are the corrections of clerical errors or the making of the so-called nunc pro tunc entries, in which case there is no prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the judgment is void.[47]
	GR No. 153923 2009-10-02	SPS. TOMAS F. GOMEZ AND ADELAIDA S. GOMEZ v. GREGORIO CORREA CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is settled that when a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment 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. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[10]
	GR No. 150470 2008-08-06	SPS. FELIPE AND VICTORIA LAYOS v. FIL-ESTATE GOLF CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nothing is more settled in law than that when a final judgment is executory; it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment 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. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[51]
	GR NO. 164529 2007-06-19	FELIX DE GUZMAN OCAMPO v. ALICIA SISON VDA. DE FERNANDEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Second, whether or not the MeTC Decision, dated 28 February 2001, is correct is an issue beyond the jurisdiction of any court, including this Court, because due to George, Jr.'s failure to appeal the same, it had become final and executory. Nothing is more settled in law than that when a final judgment is executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment 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. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[33]
	GR NO. 165417 2007-04-03	SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. MA. FE F. ISIP CORONA, J.
When a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[8]
	GR No. 166755 2005-11-18	ELMER F. CERVANTES v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Nothing is more settled in law than that when a final judgment is executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment 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. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time. The only recognized exceptions are the corrections of clerical errors or the making of the so-called nunc pro tunc entries, in which case no prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the judgment is void,[27] none of which is present in this case.