This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| It is basic that a judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified as soon as it becomes final and executory;[33] "[n]othing is more settled in law."[34] Once a case is decided with finality, "the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest."[35] Accordingly, a final judgment 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."[36] Once a judgment becomes final, the court or tribunal loses jurisdiction, and any modified judgment that it issues, as well as all proceedings taken for this purpose, is null and void.[37] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Consequently, insofar as the execution of the 30 January 1998 decision is concerned, the Union is out on a limb in espousing a computation which extends the benefits of the imposed CBA beyond the remaining two-year duration of the original CBA. The rule is, after all, settled that an order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity. [52] Since execution not in harmony with the judgment is bereft of validity, [53] it must conform, more particularly, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be enforced. Considering that the decision sought to be enforced pertains to the period 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1993, it necessarily follows that the computation of benefits under the imposed CBA should be limited to covered employees who were in GMC's employ during said period of time. While it is true that the provisions of the imposed CBA extend beyond said remaining two-year duration of the original CBA in view of the parties' admitted failure to conclude a new CBA, the corresponding computation of the benefits accruing in favor of GMC's covered employees after the term of the original CBA was correctly excluded in the aforesaid 27 October 2005 order issued in RAB VII-06-0475-1992. Rather than the abbreviated pre-execution proceedings before Executive Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug, the computation of the same benefits beyond 30 November 1993 should, instead, be threshed out by GMC and the Union in accordance with the Grievance Procedure outlined as follows under Article XII of the imposed CBA, to wit: Article XII | |||||