This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-06-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Supervening events refer to facts that transpire after judgment has become final and executory or to new circumstances that develop after the judgment has acquired finality.[97] In Dee Ping Wee v. Lee Hiong Wee,[98] we held that a supervening event affects or changes the substance of the judgment and renders its execution inequitable. | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In Dee Ping Wee v. Lee Hiong Wee,[147] the Court has expounded that the appropriate mode of appeal for an aggrieved party in an intra-corporate dispute is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, to wit:Verily, the first part of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Interim Rules is categorical. Save for the exceptions clearly stated therein, the provision enunciates that a decision and order issued under the Interim Rules shall be enforceable immediately after the rendition thereof. In order to assail the decision or order, however, the second part of the provision speaks of an appeal or petition that needs to be filed by the party concerned. In this appeal or petition, a restraining order must be sought from the appellate court to enjoin the enforcement or implementation of the decision or order. Unless a restraining order is so issued, the decision or order rendered under the Interim Rules shall remain to be immediately executory. | |||||
|
2013-06-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We deem it highly relevant to point out that a supervening event is an exception to the execution as a matter of right of a final and immutable judgment rule, only if it directly affects the matter already litigated and settled, or substantially changes the rights or relations of the parties therein as to render the execution unjust, impossible or inequitable.[10] A supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the judgment became final and executory, or of new circumstances that develop after the judgment attained finality, including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial because such matters were not yet in existence at that time.[11] In that event, the interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or the quashal of the writ of execution,[12] or he may move the court to modify or alter the judgment in order to harmonize it with justice and the supervening event.[13] The party who alleges a supervening event to stay the execution should necessarily establish the facts by competent evidence; otherwise, it would become all too easy to frustrate the conclusive effects of a final and immutable judgment. | |||||