You're currently signed in as:
User

DAVID SO v. CA

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2006-06-22
CORONA, J.
Petitioner has only himself to blame for not being zealous in advancing his cause in G.R. No. 131746.  He had a chance to present such issues before us but because of his negligence, he is now precluded from doing so in this present petition and in the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 22715.  Petitioner is now bound by the adverse judgment that has already attained finality. It was to be so, otherwise, there would be no end to litigation. 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 therein should be laid to rest.  Even an alleged erroneous application of a legal principle cannot bring a judgment that has already attained the status of finality to an absolute nullity under the well entrenched rule of finality of judgment. This rule is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of the court must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[33] WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.