Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR Nos. 180880-81 2012-09-18	KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD v. PIONEER INSURANCE MENDOZA, J.
Who should bear the cost of the arbitration?[24]
	GR No. 164195 2009-12-04	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Nonetheless, the recall of entries of judgment, albeit rare, is not a novelty.[25] In Tan Tiac Chiong v. Hon. Cosico,[26] this Court already denied with finality two successive motions for reconsideration of the judgment it earlier rendered; yet, it still recalled the Entry of Judgment in the interest of substantial justice. The Court had also sanctioned the recall of entries of judgment in cases such as Manotok IV v. Barque[27] and Barnes v. Padilla,[28] again, on the ground of substantial justice. Particularly, in Barnes, the Court justified the relaxation of the procedural rule on finality of judgment, thus: However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.