This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-02-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners are therefore barred from assailing the ruling that the injunction issued by the Quezon City RTC has no binding effect to the courts of Caloocan City as this issue had already been passed upon with finality. Issues should be laid to rest at some point; otherwise there would be no end to litigation. As elucidated in Hufana v. Genato[15]:It is well established that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them. The dictum therein laid down became the law of the case and what was once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision, continues to be binding between the same parties as long as the facts on which the decision was predicated, continue to be the facts of the case before the court. Hence, the binding effect and enforceability of that dictum can no longer be relitigated anew since said issue had already been resolved and finally laid to rest in that aforementioned case (Miranda v. CA, 141 SCRA 306 [1986]), if not by the principle of res judicata, but at least by conclusiveness of judgment. Quite conspicuously, the instant petition assailing the order of the RTC denying petitioners' motion to suspend execution is a ploy to deprive private respondent of the fruits of his hard-won case. It must be stressed that once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the presiding judge to issue a writ of execution except in certain cases, as when subsequent events would render execution of judgment unjust.[16] Petitioners did not allege nor proffer any evidence that this case falls within the exception. Hence, there is no reason to vacate the writ of execution issued by the RTC. | |||||
|
2003-04-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| This argument cannot be passed upon in this appeal, because it was not raised in the tribunals a quo. Well-settled is the rule that issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, points of law, theories, and arguments not brought to the attention of the Court of Appeals need not -- and ordinarily will not -- be considered by this Court.[27] Petitioner's allegation cannot be accepted by this Court on its face; to do so would be tantamount to a denial of respondents' right to due process.[28] | |||||