This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-04-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the conclusively settled fact or question furthermore cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action.[21] Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.[22] | |||||
|
2014-10-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| This provision comprehends two distinct concepts of res judicata: (1) bar by former judgment and (2) conclusiveness of judgment.[18] In Judge Abelita III v. P/Supt. Doria, et al.,[19] the Court explained the two aspects of res judicata, thus: There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action. Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before the same or other tribunal. | |||||
|
2013-07-02 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The consolidation of two or more actions is authorized where the cases arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction and that consolidation will not give one party an undue advantage or that consolidation will not prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.[18] As to parties, their substantial identity will suffice. Substantial identity of parties exists when there is a community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second, even if the latter has not been impleaded in the first case.[19] As to issues, what is required is mere identity of issues where the parties, although not identical, present conflicting claims.[20] The justification for consolidation is to prevent a judge from deciding identical issues presented in the case assigned to him in a manner that will prejudice another judge from deciding a similar case before him. | |||||
|
2011-04-04 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, petitioner Bangayan raises questions of fact [91] regarding the authenticity of the Surety Agreement and the events leading up to the dishonor of the seven checks. However, petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 are limited only to pure questions of law [92] and, generally, questions of fact are not reviewable [93] since this Court is not a trier of facts. [94] Although respondent RCBC briefly treated this procedural matter, [95] the Court finds that the instant Petition is indeed subject to dismissal because the determination of questions of fact is improper in a Rule 45 proceeding. [96] In any case, even if procedural rules were to be relaxed at this instance, the substantial merits of petitioner Bangayan's cause is nonetheless insufficient to reverse the decisions of the trial and appellate courts, as will be discussed in detail below. | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Stated differently, conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction.[10] The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action.[11] Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.[12] | |||||