Doctrines Finals Remidial Law Review Finals
Not complete, used under Atty. Brondial Rem Rev 1...
Banez vs Banez: Execution pending appeal is allowed when superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may result from the issuance of the writ. Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea for execution pending appeal. To do so would make make execution routinary, the rule rule rather than the exception.
Fajardo vs Quitlag: As frontline officials of the justice system, sheriffs must always strive to maintain public trust in the performance performance of their duties. Having the forsworn duty to uphold the majesty of the law, la w, they must see to it that the final stage in the litigation process is carried out without unnecessary delay Santos vs Panulaya: Willful and deliberate forum-shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case, and constitutes direct contempt of court. mere filing of the notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case and to resolve pending incidents, i.e., motion for execution pending appeal To deprive trial courts of their discretion to grant execution pending appeal would bring back the ghost of the "grab-the-proclamation-prolong the protest" techniques RCBC vs Magwin To continue hereafter with the resolution of petitioner's complaint without the usual procedure for the re-filing thereof, we will save the t he court a quo invaluable time and other resources far outweighing the docket fees that petitioner would be forfeiting should we rule otherwise. City Of Iligan vs. Principal Management Management Group, INC. INC. (PMGI) The ascertainment of good reasons for execution pending appeal lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Normally, its finding will not not be disturbed by a reviewing court, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. When the period of appeal has not yet expired, the execution of a judgment should not be allowed except if, in the court’s discretion, there are good reasons therefor Villaruel Jr. vs. Fernando Fernando a judgment that has acquired acquired finality becomes immutable immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes Spouses Morta vs Judge Bagagnan: justice delayed is justice denied The unexplained failure of judges to decide cases and resolve motions and incidents within the reglementary period of 90 days, which is fixed by the Constitution and the law, renders them administratively liable.
Delay reinforces in the mind of litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly Spouses Serrano vs Ca and Heirs Of Geli: D’Armoured vs Oropia: an order of execution of a final and executory judgment, as in this case, is not appealable, otherwise, there would be no end to litigation exemption (from execution) pertains only to natural persons and not to juridical entities Perez vs CA: A judgment or order is on the merits of the case when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings plea dings or issues presented for trial. absolute identity of parties is not a condition sine qua non for the application of res judicata. It is sufficient that there is a shared identity of interest.
Redemption is inconsistent with with the claim of of invalidity of the sale. Redemption is an implied admission of the regularity of the sale and would estop the respondents from later impugning its validity on that ground
Section 49(b) , Rule 39 enunciates the first concept of res judicata, known as bar by prior judgment or estoppel by judgment, which refers to a theory or matter that has been definitely and finally settled on its merits by a court of competent jurisdiction without fraud or collusion. Section 49(c) of Rule 39 enumerates the concept of conclusiveness of judgment/collateral judgment/collateral estoppel. This applies where, between the first case wherein judgment is rendered and the second case wherein such judgment is involved, there is no identity of causes of action Case law has it that where a right, question or fact is distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a first case, between the same parties or their privies, the former adjudication of that fact, right or question is binding on the parties or their privies in a second suit irrespective of whether the causes of action are the same A plaintiff is mandated to place in issue in his pleading, all the issues existing when the suit began. A lawsuit cannot be tried piecemeal Panotes vs. CTDC: An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of five years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party.
strangers to a case, like CTDC, are not bound by the judgment rendered by a court. Stronghold vs Judge Felix and Garon: the authority to determine whether an appeal is dilatory lies with the appellate court. The trial court’s assumption that the appeal is dilatory prematurely judges the merits of the main case on appeal. The mere filing of a bond by a successful party is not a good reason to justify execution pending appeal as a combination of circumstances is the dominant consideration which impels impels the grant of immediate immediate execution. The bond is only an additional factor for the protection of the defendant’s creditor.
Heirs of Spouses Reterta vs Spouses Mortes:
The fact that the order granting the motion to dismiss was a final order for thereby completely disposing of the case, leaving nothing more for the trial court to do in the action, truly called for an appeal, instead of certiorari, as the correct remedy. A motion for reconsideration is not putting forward a new issue, or presenting new evidence, or changing the theory of the case, but is only seeking a reconsideration of the judgment or final order based on the same issues, contentions, and evidence By denying a motion for reconsideration, reconsideration, or by granting it only partially, therefore, a trial court finds no reason either to reverse or to modify its judgment or final order, and leaves the judgment or final order to stand. The remedy from the denial is to assail the denial in the course of an appeal of the judgment or final order itself.
It is inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari that a litigant need not mark time by resorting to the less speedy remedy of appeal in order to have an order annulled and set aside for being patently void for failure of the trial court to comply with the Rules the Rules of Court The wide breadth and range of the discretion of the court are such that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus or mandamus,, and that in the exercise of superintending control over inferior courts, a superior court is to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case “as the ends of justice may require.” Thus, the writ will be granted whenever necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice. justice. PBB vs Chua: When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts.
partial summary judgment was never intended to be be considered a “final judgment,” as it does not “[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for.” The Rules provide for a partial summary judgment as a means to simplify the trial process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on the assailed facts, considering as established those facts which are not in dispute. partial summary judgment envisioned by the Rules is an interlocutory order that was never meant to be treated separately from the main case. A partial summary judgment “is not a final or appealable judgment.”
The propriety of the summary judgment may be corrected only on appeal or other direct review, not a petition for certiorari, certiorari, since it imputes error on the lower court’s judgment.