ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 126899 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICITO T. BARBOSA

  • G.R. No. 128137 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO HAMTO

  • G.R. No. 131203 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 137473 August 2, 2001 - ESTELITO V. REMOLONA v. CSC

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 August 2, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO P. CABILTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131817 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE L. DOMINGO

  • G.R. Nos. 133791-94 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO SUPNAD

  • G.R. No. 135065 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY CABANGCALA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4982 August 9, 2001 - KATRINA JOAQUIN CARIÑO v. ARTURO DE LOS REYES

  • A.M. No. 01-2-47-RTC August 9, 2001 - RE: JUDGE GUILLERMO L. LOJA,

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365 August 9, 2001 - CESINA EBALLA v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-01-1495 August 9, 2001 - ESMERALDO D. VISITACION v. GREDAM P. EDIZA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506 August 9, 2001 - JOSEFINA MERONTOS Vda. de SAYSON v. OSCAR E. ZERNA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1489 August 9, 2001 - CATALINO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. AMELITA O. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 110740 August 9, 2001 - NDC-GUTHRIE PLANTATIONS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112485 August 9, 2001 - EMILIA MANZANO v. MIGUEL PEREZ SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129209 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESEMIEL MOSQUERRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134565 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. LUDIVINO MIANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138472-73 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 138964 August 9, 2001 - VICENTE RELLOSA, ET AL. v. GONZALO PELLOSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139411 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO TORALBA

  • G.R. No. 139532 August 9, 2001 - REGAL FILMS v. GABRIEL CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. 139665 August 9, 2001 - MA. VILMA S. LABAD v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140347 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO OLITA

  • G.R. No. 142546 August 9, 2001 - ANASTACIO FABELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142838 August 9, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. ANTONIO P. GATMAITAN

  • G.R. No. 143881 August 9, 2001 - DANILO EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO SISTOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143949 August 9, 2001 - ATCI OVERSEAS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144089 August 9, 2001 - CONCORDE HOTEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126480 August 10, 2001 - MARIA TIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129162 August 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY FIGURACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130998 August 10, 2001 - MARUBENI CORP. ET AL. v. FELIX LIRAG

  • G.R. Nos. 137934 & 137936 August 10, 2001 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN M. BITANGA. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143673 August 10, 2001 - CONRADO TUAZON, ET AL. v. ERNESTO GARILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144708 August 10, 2001 - RAFAEL ALBANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146724 August 10, 2001 - GIL TAROJA VILLOTA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136266 August 13, 2001 - EUTIQUIO A. PELIGRINO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1612 August 14, 2001 - MARCO FRANCISCO SEVILLEJA v. ANTONIO N. LAGGUI

  • A.M. No. P-00-1438 August 14, 2001 - JUNN F. FLORES v. ROGER S. CONANAN

  • G.R. No. 135482 August 14, 2001 - ORLANDO SALVADOR v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136192 August 14, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141617 August 14, 2001 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and MERRYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RITA C. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 142276 August 14, 2001 - FLORENTINO GO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142662 August 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY FERRER

  • A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: ATTY. DAVID BRIONES.

  • A.M. RTJ No. 89-403 August 15, 2001 - MOLINTO D. PAGAYAO v. FAUSTO H. IMBING

  • A.M. No. 96-9-332-RTC August 15, 2001 - DIRECTOR, PNP NARCOTICS COMMAND v. JAIME N. SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. P-99-1311 August 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ALBERTO V. GARONG

  • G.R. Nos. 113822-23 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL L. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118492 August 15, 2001 - GREGORIO H. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120468 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE B. LIWANAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128177 August 15, 2001 - ROMAN SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129295 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MORIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129598 August 15, 2001 - PNB MADECOR v. GERARDO C. UY

  • G.R. No. 130360 August 15, 2001 - WILSON ONG CHING KIAN CHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136834 August 15, 2001 - FELIX SENDON, ET AL. v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137271 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. REYNALDO CORRE JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137509 August 15, 2001 - PEVET ADALID FELIZARDO, ET AL v. SIEGFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 137969-71 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RAFAEL SALALIMA

  • G.R. No. 139337 August 15, 2001 - MA. CARMINIA C. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139420 August 15, 2001 - ROBERTO R. SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001 - LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN, ET AL v. LAMBERTO T. CHUA

  • G.R. No. 144813 August 15, 2001 - GOLD LINE TRANSIT v. LUISA RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 147270 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: PETE C. LAGRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1565 August 16, 2001 - FEDERICO S. BERNARDO v. PATERNO G. TIAMSON

  • G.R. No. 119900 August 16, 2001 - SUNNY MOTORS SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121897 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL TEMPLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126200 August 16, 2001 - DEV’T. BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126926 August 16, 2001 - RAMON P. ARON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127543 August 16, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL PIPES, ET AL. v. F. F. CRUZ & CO.

  • G.R. No. 132155 August 16, 2001 - ARAS-ASAN TIMBER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134292 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 136365 August 16, 2001 - ENRIQUE R. CAMACHO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NAT’L. BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136780 August 16, 2001 - JEANETTE D. MOLINO v. SECURITY DINERS INTERNATIONAL CORP.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597 August 20, 2001 - WILSON ANDRES v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 August 20, 2001 - MIGUEL ARGEL v. HERMINIA M. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 110055 August 20, 2001 - ASUNCION SAN JUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111685 August 20, 2001 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131866 August 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS DOCTOLERO

  • G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001 - GUALBERTO CASTRO v. RICARDO GLORIA

  • G.R. No. 132684 August 20, 2001 - HERNANI N. FABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134718 August 20, 2001 - ROMANA INGJUGTIRO v. LEON V. CASALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142401 August 20, 2001 - ANDREW TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137299 August 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO NANAS

  • G.R. No. 138869 August 21, 2001 - DAVID SO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140519 August 21, 2001 - PHIL. RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. THELMA RUPA

  • G.R. No. 130817 August 22, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138403 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY C. ABULENCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 141712-13 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO M. BOHOL

  • G.R. No. 143867 August 22, 2001 - PLDT v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128628 August 23, 2001 - ILDEFONSO SAMALA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133749 August 23, 2001 - HERNANDO R. PEÑALOSA v. SEVERINO C. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 133789 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO P. CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136506 August 23, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137199-230 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE J. ALAY-AY

  • G.R. No. 137842 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO H. CATUBIG

  • G.R. No. 138588 August 23, 2001 - FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DIAZ REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. 138022 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 144142 August 23, 2001 - YOLANDA AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 August 24, 2001 - RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131609 August 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO PUERTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1571 August 28, 2001 - JESUS GUILLAS v. RENATO D. MUÑEZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1645 August 28, 2001 - VICTORINO S. SIANGHIO, JR. v. BIENVENIDO L. REYES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626 August 28, 2001 - JOSELITO D. FRANI v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

  • G.R. Nos. 100633 & 101550 August 28, 2001 - SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114118 August 28, 2001 - SIMEON BORLADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125728 August 28, 2001 - MARIA ALVAREZ VDA. DE DELGADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129960 August 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 131175 August 28, 2001 - JOVITO VALENZUELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133056 August 28, 2001 - FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA v. PUYAT VINYL PRODUCTS

  • G.R. No. 140812 August 28, 2001 - CANDIDO ALFARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143256 August 28, 2001 - RODOLFO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144653 August 28, 2001 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC August 30, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. TERESITA Q. ORBIGO-MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. TULIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119811 August 30, 2001 - SOCORRO S. TORRES, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123980 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CALIMLIM

  • G.R. No. 127905 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO REMUDO

  • G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133113 August 30, 2001 - EDGAR H. ARREZA v. MONTANO M. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 136280 August 30, 2001 - ORCHARD REALTY and DEV’T CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139083 August 30, 2001 - FLORENCIA PARIS v. DIONISIO A. ALFECHE

  • G.R. No. 140229 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY BALMOJA

  • G.R. No. 140995 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO M. REGALA

  • G.R. No. 141128 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORPIANO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 141283 August 30, 2001 - SEGOVIA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. J.L. DUMATOL REALTY

  • G.R. No. 144442 August 30, 2001 - JESUS SALVATIERRA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A. M. No. 00-7-299-RTC August 31, 2001 - REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO. R-1692 RTC BR. 45

  • A.M. No. 00-8-03-SB August 31, 2001 - RE: UNNUMBERED RESOLUTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN RE ACQUISITION OF THREE [3] MOTOR VEHICLES FOR OFFICIAL USE OF JUSTICES

  • A.M. No. P-99-1316 August 31, 2001 - KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. Nos. 132548-49 August 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO MIASCO

  • G.R. No. 141211 August 31, 2001 - CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 119811   August 30, 2001 - SOCORRO S. TORRES, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 119811. August 30, 2001.]

    SOCORRO S. TORRES, and ROGER VEN S. TORRES, NONETTA T. BANGSAL, and VIVENCIO GEORGE S. TORRES, as heirs of Vivencio T. Torres, Petitioners, v. HON. DEODORO J. SISON, as Presiding Judge, Branch 41, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Dagupan City, ALICIA B. FABIA, as Clerk of Court VI, Regional Trial Courts, Dagupan City Station and as Ex-Officio Sheriff, and the Spouses CEFERINO ILLUSCUPIDES AND ARACELI CAMACHO-ILLUSCUPIDES, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    PARDO, J.:


    The case is a special civil action for certiorari with temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin respondent Alicia B. Fabian, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of Dagupan City, from enforcing the writ of execution 1 and to nullify the order 2 of respondent Judge Deodoro J. Sison finding the motion for execution meritorious and the order 3 denying the motion to quash the writ of execution for lack of merit.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The petition also seeks clarification as to which ruling shall prevail in the same case between two (2) allegedly conflicting but final and executory decisions of the Supreme Court. 4

    Re: G.R. No. 92248

    On December 10, 1973, Emilio Olores filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Dagupan City, an action against Ceferino Illuscupides, Araceli Camacho Illuscupides, Vivencio T. Torres and Socorro S. Torres 5 for rescission of the sale of two parcels of land, located at Dagupan City, that the Illuscupides sold to the Torreses.

    After trial on the merits, on October 7, 1986, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered, by preponderance of evidence, judgment is hereby rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. Dismissing the complaint for rescission filed by plaintiff;

    "2. Ordering the dismissal of the cross-claim and counter-claims of defendants Illuscupides against Torres and plaintiff;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "3. Ordering defendants Illuscupides and/or Torres to deliver the P41,000.00 withheld by them as part of the purchase price of the lots and apartment for the satisfaction of the claim of plaintiff;

    "4. Ordering defendants Illuscupides to pay plaintiff and defendants Torres the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees each.

    "5. Ordering the defendants Illuscupides to pay the costs.

    "SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In due time, the defendants appealed to the Court Appeals. 6

    After due proceedings, on January 18, 1990, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, the decision dated October 7, 1986 is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as the dismissal of the complaint of plaintiff-appellant Olores, the cross-claim and counter-claim of defendants-appellants Illuscupides and counter-claim of defendants-appellees Torres; REVERSED insofar as Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the dispositive portion of the Decision are concerned; and the defendants-appellees spouses Vivencio Torres and Socorro Torres are ordered to reconvey in favor of the defendants-cross-claimants spouses Ceferino and Araceli Illuscupides that certain building more particularly designated as a ten-door apartment in the Deed of Sale executed by and between the above named parties on October 19, 1973." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On March 9, 1990, petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in so far as it ordered the reconveyance to the respondents Illuscupides of the ten-door apartment building. 7

    On June 18, 1990, the Supreme Court issued a resolution which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the aforesaid petition as well as the comment thereon of the aforenamed respondents, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in affirming the dismissal of the complaint for rescission but ordering petitioners and/or respondents to pay contractor’s fee and ordering petitioners to reconvey the lots and apartment to respondents Illuscupides." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    and which became final and executory on July 25, 1990. 8

    Re: G.R. No. 93390

    On their part, on June 18, 1990, respondents Illuscupides filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari seeking to modify the same Court of Appeals decision so as to allow them to repurchase the two (2) lots in question, not only the ten-door apartment. 9

    On December 9, 1992, the Supreme Court rendered a decision affirming in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals. 10 On March 8, 1993, the decision became final and executory. 11

    On December 2, 1993, respondents Illuscupides filed with the trial court a motion for execution of the resolution of the Supreme Court 12 "ordering petitioners to reconvey the lots and apartment to respondents Illuscupides." The trial court granted the motion in an order dated July 14, 1994, 13 followed by the issuance of a writ of execution, dated February 14, 1995. 14

    On July 26, 1994, petitioners filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration/clarification and/or to quash the writ of execution. 15

    On February 14, 1995, the clerk of court of the lower court issued a writ of execution directing the petitioners to reconvey the lots and apartment to respondents Illuscupides. 16

    On February 27, 1995, petitioners filed with the trial court a motion to quash writ of execution 17 On March 16, 1995, the trial court denied the motion for lack of merit. 18

    Hence, this petition. 19

    On June 5, 1995, the Court issued a resolution 20 dismissing the petition and ruling that the decision of the Court in G.R. No. 93390 neither altered nor modified the decision in G.R. No. 92248, which is final and executory. And since the decision in G.R. No. 92248 has become final and executory, then it can no longer be amended.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On June 26, 1995, petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a motion for reconsideration. 21 On December 13, 1995, the Court denied the motion. 22

    On February 13, 1996, petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration with the attached motion for reconsideration. 23

    On June 17, 1996, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration. We reinstated the petition and required respondents to comment thereon. 24

    Petitioners raised the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    First: Is the phrase "ordering the petitioners to pay contractor’s fee and to reconvey the lots and apartment building to respondents Illuscupides" a mere paraphrase of the decision of the Court of Appeals in which the Supreme Court found no reversible error, and the inclusion of reconveyance of the lot a mere typographical error?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Second: If the order to reconvey the lot was not a typographical error, then the grant of that relief was a departure from established jurisprudence that no affirmative relief can be given a party who did not appeal from the decision.

    Third: Is not the order to reconvey the lot, which is not prayed for in the petition of the Torreses, inconsistent with the finding that there was no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals, thereby supporting the contention that the order to reconvey the lot was a mere typographical error in paraphrasing?

    Fourth: If indeed the order to reconvey the lots was a relief granted, is this not violative of the constitutional requirement of due process provided in Article III, Section 1, and Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution?

    Fifth: Did not the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 93390, which affirmed in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals finally dispose of the rights of the Illuscupides as to the lot, for: (a) the reconveyance of the lot was the issue raised in the Petition; (b) the Supreme Court having the two cases (G.R. No. 93390 and G.R. No. 92248) in the caption of the two decisions had considered both cases;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Sixth: Is the decision in G.R. No. 93390, which denied reconveyance of the lot, a supervening event, legally sufficient to prevent enforcement of the minute resolution in G.R. No. 92248.

    Seventh: Granting for the sake of argument that the minute resolution in G.R. No. 92248 granted the affirmative relief sought to be enforced by the lower court, which shall prevail: the minute resolution in G.R. No. 92248 or the decision in G.R. No. 93390?25cralaw:red

    The questions presented boil down to the issue of whether the minute resolution of the Court in G.R. No. 92248 has been superseded by the decision in G.R. No. 93390.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We dismiss the petition.

    The decision in G.R. No. 93390 did not alter or modify the resolution in G.R. No. 92248. A final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be altered or modified, except for clerical errors, misprisions or omissions. 26 No "inferior" court has authority to revoke a resolution of a superior court, much less a final and executory resolution of the Supreme Court, the latter itself having no power to revoke the same after it has become final. 27 Any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose. 28 An order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity. 29

    As this Court has stated, "all litigation must at last come to an end, however unjust the result of error may appear. Otherwise, litigation would become even more intolerable than the wrong or injustice it is designed to correct. Considering the litigiousness of our people and the volume of litigation being processed in our legal system, the importance of the public policy cannot be overturned. 30

    Once final and executory, the judgment shall be remanded to the lower court, where a motion for its execution may be filed after its entry. 31 On June 18, 1990, the Court dismissed the petition in G.R. No. 92248, and on July 25, 1990, the decision became final and executory. It was proper for the trial court to grant the respondents’ motion for a writ of execution on July 14, 1994, after the entry of judgment of the decision on July 25, 1990. Consequently, execution may be effected as a matter of course before the decision becomes stale. 32

    WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition for certiorari for lack of merit.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. In Civil Case No. D-3198, Regional Trial Court, Dagupan City, Branch 41, Petition, Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 14-15.

    2. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, p. 13.

    3. Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, p. 16.

    4. In G.R. No. 92248 and G.R No. 93390.

    5. Docketed as Civil Case No. D-3198.

    6. Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 14779.

    7. Rollo of G.R. No. 92248. Petition filed on March 9, 1993, pp. 6-13.

    8. Petition, Annex "D", Rollo, p. 17.

    9. Rollo of G.R. No. 93390. Petition filed on June 18, 1990, posted by Registered mail, pp. 7-19.

    10. Petition, Annex "E", Rollo, pp. 18-26. See 216 SCRA 287 [1992].

    11. Petition, Annex "E-1", Rollo, p. 27.

    12. In G.R. No. 92248.

    13. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, p. 13.

    14. Petition, Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 14-15.

    15. Petition, Annex "H", Rollo, pp. 40-42.

    16. Petition, Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 14-15.

    17. Petition, Annex "I", Rollo, pp. 43-46.

    18. Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, p. 16.

    19. Filed on April 28, 1995. Petition, Rollo, pp. 2-12.

    20. Rollo, pp. 47-49.

    21. Rollo, pp. 50-55.

    22. Rollo, p. 73.

    23. Rollo, pp. 74-80.

    24. Rollo, p. 82. On April 5, 2000, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 119-120).

    25. Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 5-6, Rollo, pp. 131-132.

    26. Filcon Manufacturing Corp. v. NLRC, 199 SCRA 814 [1991]; International School, Inc. v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 175 SCRA 507 [1989]; Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Briones, 165 SCRA 464 [1988]; Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Medina, 127 Phil. 47 [1967].

    27. Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. II, 1996 edition, p. 290, citing Viguierra v. Barana, 78 Phil. 486 [1947]; Amor v. Jugo, 77 Phil. 703 [1946].

    28. Industrial Management International Development Corp. v. NLRC, 331 SCRA 640, 648 [2000], citing Arcenas v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 122, 132 [1998]; Navarro v. NLRC, 327 SCRA 22, 30 [2000], citing Gaudia v. NLRC, 318 SCRA 438, 445 [1999].

    29. Ibid., citing Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 90 [1997].

    30. Reinsurance Company v. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 19 [1991].

    31. Heirs of the late Justice Jose B. L. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 135180-81 and 135425-26, August 16, 2000.

    32. Rule 39, section 6, Revised Rules of Court.

    G.R. No. 119811   August 30, 2001 - SOCORRO S. TORRES, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED