This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| We agree with the Court of Appeals that it was too late for PTC to set up legal compensation as a defense because the Main Case had already reached the execution stage. The rule is that once a decision becomes final and executory, execution shall issue as a matter of right,[24] and the issuance of a writ of execution is the court's ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus.[25] This is in accordance with the doctrine of immutability of final judgments, which states that a judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable, and 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.[26] Although there are recognized exceptions to this doctrine, one of which is where there is a supervening event that renders execution inequitable or unjust,[27] none obtains in this case. | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The March 31, 2006 CA decision[43] in CA-G.R. SP No. 89259 has long been final and executory and cannot any more be disturbed by the Court. Public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role and purpose of the courts to resolve justiciable controversies with finality.[44] | |||||
|
2012-08-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is true that a decision that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and cannot be modified in any respect,[87] even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by this Court as the highest court of the land.[88] Public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the fruits of victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of such judgment sets at naught the role and purpose of the courts to resolve justiciable controversies with finality.[89] Indeed, all litigations must at some time end, even at the risk of occasional errors. | |||||
|
2011-09-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Litigation must at some time end, even at the risk of occasional errors. Public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role and purpose of the courts to resolve justiciable controversies with finality.[23] | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so inevitably leads to the loss of the right to appeal.[15] Nonetheless, the emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause free from the constraints of technicalities. While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully and even meticulously observed, courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the administration of justice.[16] This is based, no less, on the Rules of Court which itself calls for a liberal construction of its provisions, with the objective of securing for the parties a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[17] | |||||
|
2010-04-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules. After all, rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are used only to help secure substantial justice. [36] | |||||